Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

Matthew Alan Oakeshott, Esquire, having been created Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, of Seagrove Bay in the County of Isle of Wight, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Lord Greaves

Anthony Robert Greaves, Esquire, having been created Baron Greaves, of Pendle in the County of Lancashire, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Tordoff and the Baroness Hamwee, and made the solemn Affirmation.

National Health Service: Waiting List Targets

Lord Feldman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to meet their National Health Service waiting list targets.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are well on course to achieve the 100,000 reduction promised by the end of this Parliament. The latest data (for end February 2000) show that the number of patients on National Health Service waiting lists is now 70,000 below the level inherited.

Lord Feldman: My Lords, I am glad that the figures are near to hand. However, the 70,000 figure relates to three to four months ago. I should have thought that after 27,000 hours of work the early pledge of a 100,000 reduction would have been better achieved. Have the figures for the waiting list for the waiting list improved? These have doubled in the past three years. I heard the Leader of the House--

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Feldman: My Lords, I am coming to the question. I heard the Leader of the House comment that the NHS waiting list target was a blip. As a blip is a minor error or deviation, will the Minister agree that the figure was more of a flop than a blip?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords; winter pressures had an impact on the waiting list figures, but we expected that. We made the pledge to reduce the figure by 100,000 during the lifetime of this Parliament. We are well on course to do that. Far from the figure being a blip, it demonstrates a consistent approach to tackling waiting lists over our three years in office.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, after three years it is clear that the Government's concentration on in-patient waiting lists has had the knock-on effect of a severe deterioration in out-patient waiting times. Those have doubled since the general election. Will the Government now abandon these pointless targets; or do they propose to ask Sir Richard Branson to deal with the matter?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong in his analysis. Of course we have to tackle out-patient waiting lists with the same determination as we tackle in-patient waiting lists. In the financial year between 1996-97 and 1998-99 the number of out-patients treated rose from 10,248,000 to 10,646,000. At the same time as making considerable inroads into the in-patient waiting lists, we have treated hundreds of thousands of additional patients. That is a measure of our success.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that there is no sense in which the number of more difficult cases on the waiting list has been reduced in order to deal with the easier cases? Can he stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that there is no sense in which that has occurred?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the position is clear. In the NHS, emergency cases are always treated first. Urgent treatments are always given priority, but, ultimately, matters rest on the individual clinical decisions of individual doctors.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that waiting times, not the number of people waiting, is the better measure of the ability of the NHS to cope with the demands placed on it? Furthermore, is it not the case that since the Government took office the number of patients waiting for more than a year to see a consultant has risen from 30,100 to 51,900?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if you tackle waiting lists, you tackle waiting times. I remind the noble Earl that, under the Patient's Charter, his party pledged to end waits of longer than 18 months. His government failed to succeed in that pledge. This Government are determined to tackle waiting lists and to speed up treatment for all patients. It is a key indicator in our modernisation of the health service.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Government stop telling themselves that they are doing so much better than the previous government and think about the present and the future, are they satisfied with the figures which my noble friend Lord Howe has given? Can the Minister say whether they are correct and whether the Government are satisfied with them?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as a result of the deficits and pressures on the health service when we came to office, there was at the beginning of our term, as the noble Earl suggested, an increase in the number of patients waiting for treatment. However, in the actions that the Government have taken, a determined effort has been made to reduce that. Therefore, we are very much on course to meet the target that we pledged at the last election.

Roads Maintenance: Funding

Lord Brabazon of Tara: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of the annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey published on 17th April, local authorities are receiving enough money to maintain their roads and road safety.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have reversed the cuts in maintenance expenditure made during the mid-1990s and are continuing to increase funding levels. Increases in funding take several years to be reflected in condition survey results. We are currently investigating ways to produce a more accurate estimate of maintenance need and are considering whether further funding should be made available as part of the current spending review.
	Authorities fund road safety schemes from their transport single block allocations. Road safety priorities are set by authorities in their road safety strategies.
	Funding levels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall that in 1998 the then Transport Minister said:
	"Maintenance of existing roads is our number one priority"?
	How is it then that on local authority and on national roads the Government have spent less in the past three years than did the Conservative government in the three years previous to that? Is it not also the case that expenditure on local authority roads is set to fall in 2001-02, according to figures produced by the House of Commons Library?
	Is the Minister further aware that 75 per cent of local authorities believe that there is a threat to the safety of road users due to the under-funding of road maintenance?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, I accept that the conditions survey indicates a problem with a number of local roads, which in certain circumstances can pose a safety problem. However, I entirely refute the rest of his question. As regards local authority roads, the previous government in their last four years cut expenditure by 7 per cent whereas this Government have increased it by 11 per cent in the past three years.
	As regards national roads, we have provided more additional funding for the Highways Agency maintenance. The noble Lord might be slightly misinformed about the level of Highways Agency expenditure. That is a common fault in debates because some of the expenditure has been transferred to the GLA and that does not appear in the figures.
	Apart from that, we are continuing to increase both the capital funding of maintenance through the local transport plan and the amount allocated in the SSA calculations.

Lord Islwyn: My Lords, as Britain is essentially a road-based economy, does the Minister agree that it is essential properly to maintain our road network?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. However, I find myself in a cultural warp in that noble Lords are urging me to dig more holes in the roads. However, in a positive sense, the maintenance of roads is important and a proper programme is necessary for Highways Agency roads and local authority roads. Both are being addressed by the Government, but it takes time to feed through. Furthermore, we are still suffering from the cut in the mid-1990s.

Lord Walpole: My Lords, it is easy to blame this and the previous governments. However, does not the Minister agree that conditions last winter did more damage to the roads than can be remembered during the past 20 years? Rural roads--and I speak particularly about Norfolk where there are several thousand miles--are dehaunched, debanked and all the corners have disappeared. The amount of money required to make them passable by decent traffic in time for next winter is phenomenal.
	Will the Government look further into the experiments being carried out in Norfolk on quiet lanes? For a start, I hope that many roads will be shut off and gated in order to stop heavy transport using roads that are unsuitable.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, according to the latest survey, rural roads are among those which have shown the worst decline in conditions. However, how the backlog is dealt with is a matter for the highways authorities concerned. We have provided additional money and are looking to the coming spending round to see whether further allocations are required. It is most important that if funds are allocated it is within a systematic timetable of maintenance, because it has previously been changed from one year to the next. The Government and a number of local authorities are taking initiatives in that respect.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the increased money which he claims has been allocated to roads--with regard to my local area I believe that that is probably the case in that the present levels provided by the Government are higher than those of the previous government--will make a real difference to the number of roads the technical life of which is now less than 20 years?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. If the maintenance programme is allocated according to priority in the way suggested by the UK pavement management system, which local authorities are now adopting, clearly there would be a reduction in the number of roads with the shortest apparent life. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness knows that serious technical arguments exist as to how we measure the outstanding life of roads and, therefore, the maintenance requirement.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, what steps is the Minister taking to measure the effect on road safety of roads in poor condition?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as we spelt out in the road safety strategy which we issued a couple of months ago, among the most important contributors to road safety are the engineering and maintenance of roads. That is stressed in our latest guidance to local transport plans, and local authorities are well aware of and taking note of it. Therefore, clearly safety is mainstreamed into road design and road maintenance programmes.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify the Government's position with regard to congestion charging schemes as a means of paying for increased road maintenance, such as has been proposed, I understand, within central London?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Transport Bill, which shortly will be before your Lordships' House, will provide local authorities with powers to impose road-user charging or workplace parking levies in their areas as part of an integrated transport policy, as agreed by the Government through the transport safety plan.
	So far as concerns the position of London, a parallel provision was provided in the GLA Bill passed last year. Given the preparation time and the need to make improvements in public transport, it is unlikely that many of those schemes will come into play in as short a period as three or four years. However, they represent important powers for local authorities, 25 of whom have taken them up as well as, so I understand from matters over the past couple of days, the GLA. They could make a major contribution both to rationing traffic and to financing improvements in public transport and roads.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister say what percentage of capital spending on roads by central government is spent on maintenance? Does he believe that that percentage is adequate, and should it not be constant?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with regard to total capital spending. From recollection, total road spending would account for approximately 40 per cent of the Highways Agency spending. That is the only part that central government spends directly. With regard to the amounts that we give to local authorities, the revenue grant to local authorities has increased over the past three years by 11 per cent and the capital grants provided through the local transport plans have increased by 24 per cent. Of course, I refer to England. Noting the noble Lord who asked the question, the situation in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I note that my noble friend says that the Government are allocating funds on the basis of needs. Does that mean that they take no account of net per capita income in different parts of the country? On that basis, for example, London would receive nothing.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that question raises slightly wider problems than local authority finance devolution and public finances generally. The roads formula is based on a mixture of needs and the general indicators for local authorities. We are examining the basis for the formula and for local government finance in general. However, in principle the money is allocated on the basis of a mixture of general needs and of roads requirements.

Montenegro

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have had discussions with the Russian Government on Montenegro.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are in regular contact with Moscow on a wide range of issues, including Balkans affairs. There have been no recent talks specifically on the subject of Montenegro.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, did the discussions include the effect of the grain blockage that Serbia has imposed on Montenegro? How serious an effect do Her Majesty's Government feel that that has had on Montenegrin stabilities? As EU Finance Ministers are about to meet in order to authorise approximately 20 million dollars for programmes to support the 11th June elections in Montenegro, will we be supporting the move to send international observers to the Republic following that initiative?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the blockade has obviously caused a great deal of difficulty. The FRY Government have imposed economic measures against Montenegro since late last year and the recent imposition of a complete economic blockade is a significant escalation. However, the EU assistance allocated to Montenegro aims to alleviate the pressures that the blockade has exacerbated. Obviously, the UK condemns those destabilising tactics on the part of Milosevic's regime, and we shall continue to be a strong supporter of Montenegro during its difficulties. However, one must remember that it remains an integral part of the FRY.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the extreme importance of indicating our support for democracy in Montenegro, will the Minister consider further the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sending a supervisory team for the municipal elections on 11th June in Podgorica and Novi Herzog? Can she also say whether there is any advance with regard to the suggestion that I raised some time ago about the possibility of establishing an EU office in Montenegro in order to make it clear that we are concerned about the future and the stability of that small province?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly say to both noble Baronesses that we shall look at the matter of sending observers. I cannot give a direct answer in relation to that matter, but we certainly understand the issue.
	So far as concerns the second issue, your Lordships will of course remember that Montenegro remains an integral part of the FRY, which obviously creates certain difficulties for us. We have a number of outlets in Montenegro which presently are capable of keeping our bilateral relations alive. That situation will continue for the time being.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any lasting and viable solution to the formidable problems of the Balkans necessarily will involve Russia? Will she therefore confirm that, in the regular discussions between the Government and Russia, the Balkans and the long-term solutions to its problems feature highly?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure noble Lords that the Balkans and its problems are issues which continue to be raised between ourselves and the Russians. They are extremely important and obviously we are all trying to do as much as we can to ensure that the Balkans' security becomes a reality and not merely a hope.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the blockade already referred to is illegal in terms of international law? Can the matter be taken to the International Court of Justice? Will she also confirm that any further attempts by the Milosevic regime to alter the status quo in Montenegro will be firmly resisted, particularly by NATO.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those issues are causing us great concern. We shall keep them under active observation and consider what best to do next. But the EU has done a significant amount to try to counteract the effect of the blockade by the increase in the assistance which we are giving to Montenegro which is, at present, the most helpful way forward.

Allen Report

Baroness Richardson of Calow: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to implement the recommendations of the 1991 Allen report that followed the Hillsborough, Clapham and "Marchioness" disasters, with regard to post-traumatic stress counselling for casualties of major disasters.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although never formally endorsed by the Department of Health, the Allen report contained many helpful recommendations for a range of organisations. Some of those recommendations are now dated and we are considering whether new guidance is needed.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am glad to know that something is being done, not only through government circles but also in other areas.
	Is the Minister aware that, of the 70 per cent who are affected in major incidents, 40 per cent are still affected a year after the incident and that undiagnosed and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder causes great problems within the National Health Service? It bears human and economic costs.
	I suggest that that is true not only of the large numbers affected by major disasters but also of individuals who are affected as victims of violent crime. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress made in the nine years since the Allen report suggested that there should be a nationally integrated service to provide post-traumatic counselling facilities? I understand that currently such provision is available mainly in London and the South East, with few facilities provided elsewhere, and that at present the waiting time for initial consultation, even in London, is 12 to 18 months. Given the sad inevitability of future major disasters, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done in that regard?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I accept that the noble Baroness has pin-pointed challenges which we face to ensure that a sufficient range of services is available. I assure her that we have established a work force action team that is looking closely at the work force issues which she has raised. I should say also to the House that we have established a national advisory group for psychotherapy which, in itself, is taking an overview of education and training requirements. I hope that that will help us to meet some of the challenges to which the noble Baroness referred.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is the Minister aware that stress is a perfectly normal reaction to major disaster and that there is a growing body of opinion which suggests that the wholesale stress counselling of people involved with major disasters may be damaging?
	Does my noble friend also agree that, if that is applied to the emergency services and to the Armed Forces, it can be enfeebling and can be similar to responding to a burglar alarm by simply switching off the alarm? We should take great care before we encourage the growth of what I see as a growing stress industry.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for that point. Of course, one should not underestimate the severe trauma which many people have suffered as a result of some of the tragedies which have occurred in this country. In those cases, it is absolutely right that we should provide the most effective counselling and support service possible. But it is important that we should not push counselling onto people who do not want to receive it. We must accept that in many situations it is normal and appropriate to have emotions of fear and stress.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I was present at Hillsborough and witnessed scenes which I hope never to see repeated in my lifetime. Is my noble friend aware that the pain and suffering of the bereaved were aggravated greatly by the media treatment of the disaster? Is he satisfied that the Allen report's six recommendations on media issues have been followed in respect of subsequent disasters? Does he not agree that those should be looked at again?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly believe that my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the media and the often intrusive impact which that may have on people who are suffering great trauma. However, as a general point, I believe that we have learnt lessons from disasters like Hillsborough. Certainly, as regards my own department, if one looks at the recent Paddington disaster, there is no doubt that the provision of health services and the co-ordination between emergency services were excellent. While there are always new lessons to learn, we must recognise that we have learnt from those tragedies. I believe that we have a very good system of emergency planning as a result.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Northern Ireland. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Scotland who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th and 12th May

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 11th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington to be taken before the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and also on Friday 12th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to be taken before the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I appreciate that it is in no way the fault of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but I wonder whether I could raise the problem of the confusing way in which these two debates have been scheduled on the Minute.
	Noble Lords will have noticed that they were first scheduled in the Minute on 3rd May, when the defence debate correctly appeared as being the first business for next Friday, 12th May, with the Committee stage of the Bill in my name on the implications of withdrawal from the EU as the second business. I am sure that this is indeed the appropriate order and I make no complaint about it, and I am extremely grateful to the usual channels that my Bill should go ahead at all.
	But the purpose of my intervention is to point out that in the Minute of 4th May, the batting order was reversed with my Bill appearing to be taken before the defence debate. My fear is that a number of noble Lords--and indeed, one has already spoken to me--will have therefore concluded that they could contribute to my debate and get away in good time for the weekend, probably well before lunch, and may have made arrangements to do so. We are, after all, talking about a Friday in May.
	But now the batting order is to be reversed again, back to what it was when we started on 3rd May, which may cause further inconvenience and confusion with both those who wish to speak in the defence debate and in the European debate. So I merely wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she could do something, perhaps with the authorities of the House, maybe to arrange the use of italics, which I understand is quite widely used on the Minute in the other place, so we would all know where we stand on a Friday afternoon in May.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those matters which, as he says, are particularly relevant to a Friday afternoon in May. I have an elaborate explanation in front of me which I am prepared to convey to the noble Lord in writing or indeed to repeat, but I fear that that may cause enormous exhaustion for the House.
	Perhaps I may try to explain the matter in one sentence. The second part of the Motion, which refers to Friday, 12th May, which I have just repeated, corrects what was wrongly printed on the Minute and puts the business back in the order that it should be. I agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the complexities of what appears on the Minute and the reasons that it appears in the order that it does are somewhat difficult to follow. I agree with him that perhaps we need to pursue this issue. The noble Lord may care to raise this during the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston on Wednesday, although I believe the Speakers' List is rather long. I believe that it is an issue which we could usefully address, if not then, perhaps on another occasion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MEANING OF "CHILD"
	(" . In section 55(1) of the Child Support Act 1991--
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "16" there shall be substituted "17", and
	(b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted--
	"(b) he is receiving full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course);".").

Earl Russell: Amendment No. 2 deals with people who are older than those normally dealt with by the CSA. It extends the right to receive maintenance to the age of 17 or up to the conclusion of full-time education, whichever may be the later.
	Where agreements for the maintenance of children are reached by negotiation between parents, it is perfectly common for them to include provision for the higher education of the child concerned. Indeed, that is a point I make from memory and with some gratitude. Where a system is imposed and where people have no right to negotiate and are required to accept particular terms willy-nilly, sometimes there is a feeling that when people have done what is imposed that no more should be required of them.
	That is a threat to the continuing education of all children who come under the regime of the CSA. The extension from 16 to 17 is because we do not want children compelled to leave school in the middle of a school year. It is a regular academic convention, fairly well understood in negotiations between the academic community and the Government that financial support lasts until the end of whichever course is in progress.
	As a serving university teacher, I must declare an interest in this amendment, a point that applies even more to the second part of the amendment which deals with the continuation of support through a period of full-time education. I believe that the Minister, in her academic capacity, will probably not dispute that point, although in her ministerial capacity she may feel that she must dispute it.
	In practical terms, it is now impossible for people to go through a university education without a significant amount of parental support. I do not refer just to tuition fees, although in that context they have not helped. First and foremost, the support available under the loan system and under the access funds, even if the student concerned is extremely fortunate to receive support from them, is simply insufficient to maintain a student for 52 weeks of the year. Without living at home at the parents' expense through a considerable part of the year, people simply cannot get through.
	It is no good saying that they should work for the whole of that time. I have learned a great deal more than I would have liked about the difficulties of the labour market in Bournemouth during the Christmas period. They are considerable. Bournemouth is not a unique example. In practice, without parental support, I would not advise prospective students to set out on a university education unless they are mature students with several thousands of pounds in the bank.
	If this amendment is not accepted, one of the effects of the CSA regime will be to exclude those affected by it from a university education. That is a classic case of the law of the unintended consequence. I do not believe that Ministers expect any such thing, so I hope that they will consider it. I hope that they will take advice on the matter from sources of information slightly wider than simply the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that they will actually consider the real situation. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: I have two preliminary remarks. First, we are now embarking on that section of the Bill concerned with the Child Support Agency and later we shall turn to the section on pensions and other items. Once again, I want to put on record that packaging matters that are totally disparate and have no connection whatever into one Bill is a matter of concern. Perhaps the House can attend to that point in debates that are scheduled for later this week.
	Secondly, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who, before the Bill reached this stage, helpfully held discussions and provided additional information. Also the Explanatory Notes on the Bill are available. I know that to a large extent she has been concerned in such matters. On this side of the Chamber, we intend to seek to improve the Bill in any constructive way in that we can.
	The points raised by the noble Earl are important. I am inclined to agree with him that it is difficult nowadays for anyone to complete a university education without a considerable degree of parental support. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on that subject.

Lord Renton: My noble friend has referred to completing a university education, but generally a university education does not start until people have reached the age of 18, whereas this amendment deals with those who are 17 years old.

Lord Higgins: My noble friend is absolutely right in that respect. Perhaps a commentary on present day life is that on the one hand we have an amendment--

Earl Russell: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The amendment contains two separate clauses: paragraph (a) concerns people up to the age of 17 and paragraph (b) covers,
	"full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course)".
	Those are two separate propositions.

Lord Higgins: I imagine that my noble friend had taken that point. I understand that there are two separate issues, but my noble friend suggests that we are extending the definition of what is meant by "child" to cover someone who by any normal set of definitions, would not be regarded as a child. I leave the Minister to comment on whether that falls outside the Long Title of the Bill.
	Perhaps it is also a sign of the times that we are considering what arrangements should be made for parents to support their children who undertake education and in later amendments we shall consider whether those in full-time education should support their children. Both sides of that issue arise and no doubt we shall come to the second matter later in the proceedings. None the less, I believe that the noble Earl has raised an important point. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the subject.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the noble Earl, Lord Russell, realise that as a result of his party's activities in Scotland, Scottish university students do not pay the sum required for their fees until they have finished their university courses and are earning, I believe, over £10,000? If this amendment is accepted, does he anticipate that the maintenance for young Scottish students who are at university will be at a different rate and that an allowance will be made? As he will appreciate, this Bill applies to Scotland, and I believe that in sorting out one anomaly he will create another. Perhaps he can tell the Committee how he will make sure that that arrangement is fair.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: New Clause 2 seeks to extend the definition of a child, for child support purposes, by raising the upper age limit for child support liability to the date on which full-time education up to degree level ends. Under the proposed new clause children who leave school before that stage would receive child support until their 17th birthday or until they complete full-time education including a first degree course. Currently they remain a child for child support purposes until they are 16 or under 19 and in full-time non-advanced education.
	The existing definition of a child for child support purposes reflects the rules of eligibility for child benefit. That is the point at which children are normally regarded as no longer dependent on their parents for benefit purposes. Much of the benefit system uses entitlement to child benefit as the simplest measure of establishing when a child or a young person is treated as a dependent. For example, young people are no longer treated as dependent for the purpose of assessing the amount of their parents' entitlement to income-based JSA and IS when child benefit ceases. In other words, the child may or may not be entitled in its own right.
	This rule is relatively transparent and easy for parents to understand. The point at which child benefit ceases is a sensible and straightforward point at which to end child support liability. We must maintain simplicity in the reformed scheme because we all know where complexity can take us.
	Not only would moving away from the existing definition of a child complicate a reformed system; it would also not be clear to whom the maintenance would be payable. Should it be paid to the parent with care, the student, or even to the college? Indeed, in many--if not most--cases both parents would be treated as non-resident parents, thus further complicating the child support rules.
	The amendment would also have the effect of defining as children young adults at college or university who are substantially older than 19. If I refer back a few years, I recall that a significant number of the students I taught did not complete their degrees until they were 23 or 24. This would cut across the general responsibility for student maintenance which is based not on support from parents but rather on loans repayable by the young person over time as future income from employment rises.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I do of course favour parental support for students who are, by my definition, adults. However, on the assumption that the noble Earl's amendment were to be accepted, I should not wish to see students at university being treated by their institutions as in loco parentis. That would turn adults into dependent children. I am not sure that the noble Lord would wish to see that either. I am loath to turn adults back into children for the purposes of maintenance.
	Furthermore, in extreme cases under existing legislation--Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989--provision is in place for a student aged 18 or over to apply to a court for an order requiring his separated parents to pay maintenance while he attends college. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his desire to see that the parents of young people--I use that expression intentionally--of 17 years of age who stay on at school to carry on their studies continue to receive support. Furthermore, I agree with what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I believe that we must avoid a legislative muddle.
	As the noble Baroness pointed out, various different provisions relate to the age of young people. That should make us extremely careful in our use of the word "child". A relevant factor which I do not believe was mentioned by the noble Baroness is that when a young person reaches the age of 17, he or she is a free person. If a young person decides to give up his education, under statute, that person is entitled to do so.
	Although I have sympathy in substance with the motive of the noble Earl, especially as regards the first part of his new clause, I think that we would be rash to deal with the matter in the way that he has suggested. However, it is an important issue and perhaps on Report, with further thought about the drafting, we can perhaps get it right.

Earl Russell: Perhaps I may respond, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am of course aware of the force of the point that she made. The main thrust of my argument related to the level of maintenance available to the student, not to the tuition fees. However, the matter of tuition fees clearly establishes a difference and that difference should be taken into account.
	However, when we discuss primary legislation, I cannot help but think--and here I invoke the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton--that this is the kind of point that may be a little too detailed to be dealt with in primary legislation. Perhaps I should have provided for a regulation-making power in the amendment. I admit that that cannot be ruled out altogether.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is all fine, but I must say to the noble Earl that his party has helped to make the university funding system disparate across the United Kingdom. Parents of students attending Scottish universities will not have to pay the £1,000 a year that those at universities south of the Border will have to pay. I do not think that it behoves his party to recommend to the House that students should be treated in the same way at different universities. The Liberal Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it. I believe that the noble Earl must make some allowance for that in his amendment.

Earl Russell: I thought that that was precisely the point that I had just conceded. If that was not clear, then I state again that I do concede the point. My query was only whether primary legislation would provide the correct way to respond to it and that is a point on which I shall be perfectly happy to take advice.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding the definition of a child. It is clear that what has been happening over the past 40 years is that social maturity has been getting earlier while financial maturity has been getting later. If the Minister looks at the record of national insurance contributions towards the state pension, I believe that she will probably confirm that a difficulty we are running into is that the proportion of people who have full and adequate contribution records before the age of 25 is going down. It may be that what we need to move away from is the single, isolated definition of a "child". The situation exists and we have to live in the real world. For that reason, we have to cope with it. I am perfectly prepared to entertain the possibility that the amendment I have tabled is not perhaps the best solution. However, before I can be convinced of that, I should be extremely grateful if a better way could in turn be suggested. If this is not the best way, then it follows that there must be a better approach.
	I appreciate the Minister's desire for simplicity because it would be awfully nice. However, her pursuit of simplicity resembles a little my childhood game of chess. My game would have been absolutely brilliant if the other player had not moved in the meantime. The world is an extremely complicated place. These problems exist and one way or another we must tackle then.
	I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude children benefiting from the CSA regime from the benefits of higher education. However, if it is not their intention, then I believe that they must seek a way to ensure that that intention is not realised by inadvertence.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder why the noble Earl thinks that because we are continuing the status quo on child support we are somehow excluding for the first time children who would otherwise receive maintenance under his proposed amendment from access to higher education? I could take his point if we were changing the situation as regards the age of the child, but that is the existing situation and we are not changing it. As the current Government are seeking to extend access to higher and further education to nearly 50 per cent of the population, I do not understand or take his point.

Earl Russell: I did not say, "for the first time". If the Minister refers to the proceedings on the 1995 Bill, she will see that I raised an identical point. It is not the first time, and I would not dream of pretending that I am raising it for the first time. Furthermore, I suspect that it will not be the last. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:THE GENERAL DUTY
	(" . For section 1(1) of the Child Support Act 1991 there shall be substituted--
	"(1) For the purposes of this Act any person who is the mother or the father of a qualifying child is responsible insofar as they are able--
	(a) to ensure that that child has the material support which it needs; and
	(b) to provide or procure for that child the nurture, love, care, guidance and education which it needs.
	(1A) In making provision for the nurture, love, care, guidance and education of the child both parents shall have regard to the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount.
	(1B) The responsibilities of parents under subsection (1) have effect from the day the child is born till the day on which it attains the age of 18 years.
	(1C) Except as otherwise provided by agreement in writing or by an enactment, parental responsibilities under subsection (1) are joint and several as between the father and the mother.
	(1D) In fulfilling their responsibilities under subsection (1) parents shall be entitled to make use of such services and facilities as are provided by the state."").

Lord Northbourne: This amendment would replace Section 1(1) of the Child Support Act 1991 which states:
	"For the purposes of this Act each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him".
	My amendment does not alter the main thrust of Section 1(1), but it expands upon it. In particular, it makes it clear that a non-resident father, or indeed a non-resident mother, is responsible not only for the financial maintenance of the child, but also for the other elements that are so important in the nurturing of a child. As far as possible the parent should ensure that the child receives the love, care, guidance and education that it needs. The Government have indicated that that objective is in line with their intentions. The 1988 Green Paper, Children First: a new approach to child support, made a number of references to that important issue. In the foreword, the Prime Minister stated:
	"The well-being of the growing number of children whose parents have separated depends on them receiving the financial and emotional support of both parents wherever they live".
	The summary of chapter 3, at page 2, states:
	"The Government wants parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their children. The Government wishes to develop an active family policy which links children's rights and parents' responsibilities. Modern families are evolving. But fathers are vital to their children's well- being: children do best when they have two positive and committed parents. The child support scheme should give clear messages about the rights and responsibilities of parenthood".
	Chapter 2 states that,
	"all children have a right to emotional and financial support from both their parents, wherever they live ... 40 per cent of fathers lose all contact with their children within two years of separating. In many people's eyes, the current scheme treats money as the only thing that matters. It gives the message that a non-resident parent's obligations begin and end with a cheque in the post".
	So far, so good--in respect of the Green Paper. The White Paper is a good deal more coy on the subject of non-financial obligations. To be fair, chapter 7 is devoted to the subject. It states:
	"Paying maintenance is an important part of non-resident parents' continuing responsibilities to their children--but there is more to being a good parent than this. One of the central questions for separated parents and their children is maintaining continuing contact with non-resident parents ... As explained in the Green Paper, we are convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the existing child support arrangements is that they do not work properly with other family responsibilities. The Government is committed to an interactive family policy which integrates all activities that affect the family, including maintenance and contact".
	Surprise, surprise--the Bill makes no reference whatever to anything other than financial matters, which is why I felt it appropriate to explore the Government's thinking by introducing the amendment.
	The 1991 legislation was not 100 per cent popular or 100 per cent successful. It was unpopular because it was perceived to be unfair. The Bill does little to make it seem more fair to the absent parent. Admittedly, the Bill simplifies the calculation but it still makes the assumption that financial responsibility is the only thing that really matters. It implies that the absent parent's only responsibility is to pay. It does not refer in any way to the rights or responsibilities that the Government have said absent parents should exercise towards their children--or to the need for the resident parent to make it possible for the absent parent to do that.
	The Bill also implies extremely low expectations of the absent parent. People tend to live up to the expectations made of them. Where there are low expectations of children at school, they tend not to do well. Children who are subject to higher expectations do better. I am convinced that the same applies to non-resident parents.
	My amendment declares that mothers and fathers are jointly and severally responsible for their child--not only in respect of its material needs but its emotional, social, educational and support needs. The amendment lays down that the child's non-material needs should be subject always to the best interests of the child. It does not alter the responsibility for maintenance imposed by the Section 1(1) of the 1991 Act but clarifies and expands it.
	My amendment also extends the age of responsibility to 18. I confess that I was flying a kite but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told me from the Dispatch Box six months ago that he was seriously considering whether the responsibility of families for their children should be extended to age 18. I wonder how that is going.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has more intimate conversations with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor than I do.

Lord Northbourne: I thought that we had a joined-up government. I have more confidence in joined-up government than the noble Baroness.

Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks in answer to a Starred Question. I remember the occasion well.

Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I set down that Question. Unless some thought is given to the issues that I have raised, there is a serious danger that this legislation will be just as unpopular at the 1991 Act. I do not think that it is a good idea to put unpopular legislation on the statute book. We all remember the poll tax.
	Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment about the definition of a qualifying child. It seems strange that if an absent father, who is liable to pay maintenance under the Bill and the previous legislation, moves back in with the mother of the child, the child is no longer deemed to be a qualifying child--so the father does not have to pay. I may have misinterpreted the Bill but that is how it reads to me.
	I hope that the noble Baroness has not been briefed to tear Amendment No. 3 to pieces on the ground that its drafting is defective. I confess that the drafting is probably inadequate but I wanted to raise the principle. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has said a number of extremely important things and the Minister will probably have to give a complicated reply. The Committee must appreciate that above all children must benefit from what comes out of the Bill. The Minister may tell us that because of the Bill's interaction with the Children Act 1989 and other legislation, provision is already made for most of the matters of concern to the noble Lord. Certainly, the principle that the child's interests are paramount is in the 1989 Act.
	The Bill is difficult to understand because, yet again, we are presented with legislation that is drafted to a large extent in terms of amendments to previous Acts, which one does not have to hand. So a parent will find the new legislation difficult to understand. An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill to remind parents of their responsibilities would be no bad thing.
	Having been involved in legislation about family mediation in Scotland, I know that when separating parents are making arrangements for their children, often it all comes down to a lot of anger with one another over money. It resolves itself into discussions in relation to money and the other important aspects of the position in which their child will be when they separate are forgotten. If this clause is included in the Bill, it will remind parents when they separate, and their legal advisers if they have them, what parenthood is all about.
	An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill, therefore, has much to commend it and I hope that the Government will not resist that suggestion. I can see that the Minister may have to pick up on some of the details of this specific amendment; but if she does not accept it, she may consider introducing something of this kind at a later stage. It would be a human thing to do, and would help parents to meet their obligations under the complicated legislation with which they will be confronted.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, are entirely right to be stressing the need for overarching principles at the start of the Bill. I should briefly like to say that nothing in the amendment conflicts with the other CSA--that is, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995--which lays down in Sections 1 and 2 that parents have a right and duty to maintain contact, in estrangement, with their children. It also lays down that the parent with care must enable that contact.

The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may briefly say, as someone who has worked with boys and young men over several years in various capacities, that I have noticed the confusion that young men in particular have when their fathers are not in the picture. They are sometimes confused about their sexual identity when their fathers are not around. They are particularly vulnerable to other men on whom they may wish to model themselves, who are perhaps people we would not wish them to admire and copy. It may be difficult for them to forge a special relationship with a woman later in life and start their own family if they have had no father in the picture.
	I am not sure whether this amendment is the best way of solving this problem and increasing the number of fathers who continue to be involved with their sons, but it is an important point. I am sure that the Minister will bear it in mind.

Lord Renton: I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically the move by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to include this clause, perhaps slightly modified, into the Bill, or something on the same lines.
	While we are trying to improve the situation which arises under the Act of 1991, we should seriously make a more positive definition than has so far been made of the responsibilities of parents. I hope that when further considering this matter, both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, will consider attempting to define the situation that may arise when the parents fail to agree. In those circumstances--it will always be difficult--some guidance may be given, especially when the parents are separated or divorced. In the case of disagreement, it is the parent with custody of the child who should have the last word. That is a point which could be added to the statute.

Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on having most eloquently distinguished between the things on which we all agree and those on which we do not. His amendment provides a beautifully drafted piece of common ground from which to begin our debate.
	I am glad the noble Lord said what he did about financial maintenance not being the whole story; nevertheless, I am grateful to him for having given me an opportunity to stress once again that the obligation of parents to maintain their children is common ground between all the parties who debate this Bill. I first made that point on the Statement preceding the 1991 Child Support Bill. I have made it many times since. I make it again. Any future debate is how that liability should be calculated, apportioned and assessed; never about whether it should exist.

Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl.

Earl Russell: If the noble Lord wishes to say that that was not the whole of his amendment, that was exactly the point I was coming on to. If he wishes to say anything else, I shall give way instantly.

Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I was only going to draw attention to the fact that, while he is right in saying that there is consensus across the Chamber on that subject, there is not necessarily consensus across the country. That is why it is so important for the Government to be absolutely clear what they mean.

Earl Russell: I do not dispute that point for a moment. I would be happy for that to be put into legislation.
	Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having stressed that this is not just about support, and for putting in the words he has about nurture, love, care, guidance and education. Those things are, in the end, probably much more important. I thank the noble Lord also for having worded that passage in a way which is optative and not prescriptive. We all want those things. But how to get them can be a difficult problem in which the heavy-booted intervention of legislation is not always helpful. To have it spelt out in this general way as something to which we can all aspire is exactly right.
	Thirdly, the noble Lord is right about the importance of access. But again I am grateful to him for having stuck to a tone which is optative and not prescriptive. The problems of access after matrimonial breakdown are far more difficult to resolve than most of us realise. Resolution in almost all, but not all, cases is something devoutly to be wished for. But when we are dealing with two people who have been badly hurt, we find that they do not always react with the reasonableness one hopes to achieve in a Committee of this House. So again I am glad that the noble Lord has been optative and not prescriptive.
	Perhaps I might comment on a couple of other points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In relation to the 40 per cent of non-resident parents who lose contact with their children, I understand that there is some dispute as to the academic validity of that figure, but since my information comes to me under Chatham House rules I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not develop the point further.
	I refer to the Lord Chancellor's views as to the obligation to maintain 16 and 17 year-olds. Except for 16 and 17 year-olds, all of us are in a position where a residually and fiduciary liability to maintain us if we become destitute rests on somebody; if we are under 16, on parents; if we are over 18, on the state. But in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds it at present rests nowhere. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, specifically in that context. So if the Minister does not wish him to do that, she knows what she can do about it.

Lord Higgins: The Committee will have listened with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in moving his amendment, given his considerable experience in various parts of London where there are problems of the kind with which the Bill is seeking to cope. It is true to say, as he did, that the previous legislation was not particularly popular; but it was unpopular largely with people who were not accepting the responsibilities which he is seeking to set out in his amendment. While my own constituency experience was in an area that might have been relatively tranquil compared to parts of London, nevertheless one was struck by the fact that a number of parents were not prepared to accept their responsibilities and were positively determined to resist them. We will turn to that aspect later.
	There are other aspects of the noble Lord's amendment that will, again, be reflected in our subsequent debates. He stresses that the responsibilities of parents should be held jointly and severally. A considerable amount of the controversy over the Bill relates to the question of whether both parents should pay or only one, and joint responsibility is a very important aspect of that matter. The noble Lord has tabled another amendment to the 1991 Act, which extends the definition of an absent parent by adding the words "or is not contributing to his maintenance". It would be helpful to hear the Minister's comments in relation to that issue. We are also concerned with access.
	The amendment is in effect a declaration about the responsibility of both parents. That is important, not least because the Bill is concerned with not only those who have been married and divorced, but with those who have never been married and are still parents, and to a considerable extent with where there have been multiple relationships. Part of the problem is not simply about the relationship of the first family to the second, but in some cases to the third or fourth family, when none of these events has been subject to marriage. The declaration envisaged by the noble Lord has much in its favour. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point and on the more technical aspects of the matter.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 seek to place on the face of child support legislation a new framework of obligations within which a reformed child support scheme would operate, emphasising the role of both parents in raising children.
	Amendment No. 3 seeks to set out in the Bill the wider responsibility that both parents have to their children beyond the immediate obligations to maintain them when the parents live apart. Amendment No. 4 extends the definition of "non-resident parent" to include those who live with the child and the other parent but who are not contributing to the children's maintenance.
	We are reforming child support in the context of the Government's active family policies and the wider responsibilities of parents. As we explained in the child support Green Paper, we are convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the existing child support arrangements is that they do not work properly with other family responsibilities. We strongly believe that fathers have a vital role to play in their children's lives and should never be marginal to a child's wellbeing.
	Paying maintenance is an important part of non-resident parents' continuing responsibilities to their children, but there is more to being a good parent than this. One of the central issues for separated parents and their children is maintaining continuing contact with non-resident parents. The child support reforms set out in the Bill recognise this issue because it is in the best interests of children, for whom appropriate contact can compensate for many of the problems associated with parental separation. There is good evidence to suggest that non-resident parents who have regular contact also tend to provide more maintenance for their children.
	I have seen recent research that looked at predictors of good outcomes for the children of lone parents. For daughters of lone parents a good outcome in the sense of staying on at school, doing GCSEs, not becoming pregnant as a teenager and getting a job, was that the lone parent was in work. However, for a good outcome for the sons of lone parents, in the sense of staying on at school, not truanting, not getting into trouble with the police, getting GCSEs and getting a job, the predictor was that he had regular contact with his natural father. For daughters the predictor was that the mother was in work and for sons it was if they had regular contact with their natural father. That is in accordance with what we are trying to achieve.
	We all agree that children have the right to the love and care of both their parents, whether or not they live together. A point about jointly and severally has been mentioned on several occasions: under our proposals, both parents would have joint and several responsibility in that a parent with care is providing support in kind and the non-resident parent is providing support in cash. That makes up the joint and several package.
	The Government are committed to an active family policy which integrates all activities that affect the family, including maintenance and contact. However, we do not accept that child support liability should be reduced or removed altogether simply because contact arrangements are unsatisfactory. Refusing to pay maintenance adds to the disadvantages of children who have lost contact with a parent.
	The new system of child support will be clear and easy to understand. Non-resident parents will know immediately how much they need to pay for their children and how much they will have left to meet their other responsibilities. We will recognise children's overnight stays with non-resident parents by a small reduction in rates of liability. This will go some way to meeting the non-resident parent's expenses, without being so severe as to make parents with care resistant to shared care arrangements.
	We will also support a personal, localised, face-to-face service that integrates child support with other family services. There is clearly broad support from fathers for these reforms, and it is clear that non-resident parents in particular want, more than anything else, a system of assessing liability that is simple, transparent and predictable. It is in the best interests of the child to get maintenance flowing as quickly as possible. That is what is driving our child support reforms. Where that maintenance is flowing, it is more likely that the father will seek to sustain contact.
	I understand that the amendments are intended to give expression to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which has been reflected in the Committee today, that some children and young people do not receive enough support from their parents. I agree with that concern, but I do not think it is appropriate to make a declaratory statement in a Bill, which should be as precise in its wording as possible. The appropriate place for what one might call a mission statement, is the Green Paper or the White Paper. In quoting those extensively, the noble Lord made it clear that the Government entirely shared the context in which the reforms are put before the Committee.
	The noble Lord mentioned--and had support from noble Lords--the concern of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the issue of parental responsibility and the maintenance of 16 and 17 year-olds. The noble and learned Lord has explained that there is no specific statutory obligation on a parent to provide for the maintenance of a child who has reached the age of 16 and has offered to consider a review.
	Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department are conducting an internal review of the provisions for these young people before making recommendations about whether a wider review or a full consultation exercise is required.
	I welcome the fact that in his amendment the noble Lord acknowledges that parents are not always in a position to support their children as they would wish. That is why we have set in train a wide range of initiatives, particularly where children are in care, in order to ensure that the local authority better delivers its responsibility in loco parentis. Equally, the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions is working to reduce the incidence of homelessness and rough sleeping among young people, and the Social Exclusion Unit has published reports on teenage pregnancy in 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, training or employment, which the Government intend should lead to prompt and effective action, along with the Children Leaving Care Act and the Care Standards Bill, will give additional protection for these vulnerable children.
	The amendments clearly go wider than that and fall outside the scope of the Bill, which in this section is concerned solely with the provisions of financial support where parents are living apart.
	The noble Lord wants to reconnect maintenance and contact. We know that the men who pay most maintenance are the most reliable payers of maintenance because they tend to be older, divorced men, and more likely to be in contact with and emotionally committed to their children. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was absolutely right that our major problems occur with young men for whom it may have been a casual relationship, possibly a weekend relationship only, who may be unemployed and whose own lives are pretty chaotic. They are very young and may still be living at home with their parents. There, it is often the paternal grandmother who ensures that contact continues and educates her young son in his responsibilities for his child in turn. Where that happens, it can transform the young man's life.
	However, as I have already suggested, the right way to sustain contact with the young man is through arrangements that are to be found in the Bill; for example, the abatement of maintenance to encourage overnight stays and the face-to-face interviews that we can offer. Equally, we are obviously concerned about the situation where the parent with care may thwart contact. The Lord Chancellor's Department is looking into the matter to ascertain what sanctions might be available where someone is in contempt of court. But those concerned are seeking to find sanctions that will not bite on the child, which is something that imprisonment might do. There is always the right available to a non-resident parent to consider a change, or to seek a change, of a residency order to ensure that contact is maintained.
	I fully recognise the commitment of the noble Lord to improving the circumstances of children and young people. The Government believe that existing provisions in legislation, along with existing programmes in health, in the DETR and through the Social Exclusion Unit, further supported by the passage of this Bill, its implementation and that of the other legislation to which I referred, will provide an effective means of securing the improvements that we all wish to achieve. As the noble Lord said, the context for this was reflected in our Green and White Papers. With that explanation and bearing in mind the fact that we endorse much of what the noble Lord said, although we do not think it right to put a broader description on the face of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Renton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she could explain something to me. The noble Baroness mentioned various steps and inquiries that are being undertaken within the Lord Chancellor's Department which are relevant to the noble Lord's amendment, but can she say whether the Government intend that the conclusions reached within that department, which will then be considered and approved by Ministers, will be put forward at a later stage as amendments to this Bill?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which, as I said, is currently conducting an internal review. That review may well lead to a wider review, which could go out to consultation. Therefore, even if it were a sensible procedure, the timetabling of all this would not be permitted. In any case, such major issues should certainly be tabled in Committee. From everything that I know about the review of my noble and learned friend's department, it may be several months before it may, or may not, see the light of day in the form of public consultation. So it would not be possible in practical terms. But, even if it were, I would argue that it would not necessarily be desirable because this is a child support Bill from the DSS; it does not seek to address the wider issues regarding the definition of "a child" and who has the responsibility for the child.
	If the Lord Chancellor's Department sees fit at some point to produce clauses for an appropriate Bill, that would be another matter. However, even if it were desirable, it could not be done by way of this Bill. Indeed, even if one could, I am not yet persuaded that it would be desirable to do it through this Bill.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister gave a very careful and extremely interesting response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. She suggested that the noble Lord's amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I can understand the problem in that respect, as I am sure is the case with the noble Lord, who will probably have more to say about it. However, the noble Baroness also said that a broad statement was not a good idea in this Bill and that it would be more appropriate for the Green and White Papers.
	Following on from what I said before, surely the noble Baroness does not expect parents to have these Green and White Papers constantly in front of them. They will want to know what the Bill says; indeed, they will want to ask their legal advisers what it means. Should not the noble Baroness take away the matter and think rather hard about whether it is possible to include this kind of statement, which is within the scope of the Bill, in order to help parents understand how the provision fits in with what they consider to be their legal responsibilities? It is no good just saying that such wording is all right in the Green and White Papers. That may be so for us because we can look it up, but parents cannot be expected to have copies of all these documents.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary. To my certain knowledge we have distributed thousands of copies, including the abbreviated versions of both the Green and White Papers. Indeed, we have received 1,500 responses, followed by many seminars and discussions. I should be most surprised if as many parents were as familiar with the context of a Bill, or of a parliamentary statute. Their solicitors might be, but they would not.
	The presumption seems to be that if one makes a declaratory statement in the Bill this will somehow change behaviour and that, therefore, we should accept it in order to encourage rather feckless young men to take on their responsibilities. It is presumed that if these words were in an Act such young men would read the provision and say, "Oh goodness me! Yes, Parliament has said I must do this, therefore I will". That is not what will happen. We might feel glowing as a result, but, in practice, the young men whom we seek to encourage to take on their parental responsibilities will do so because of a series of quite precise government initiatives, including encouraging them to have the residence of the child so that they bond as early as possible and making that possible through an abatement of maintenance.
	We shall also encourage young people to take on their responsibilities by working with organisations like the grandparents' organisation and, if I may put it this way, with some of the men's organisations, as well as others. I believe that the way to encourage young men to take on their responsibilities is by engaging in education in schools and by having face-to-face interviews in local offices where any problems that they have about payment can be sorted out. It is also part of our responsibility to ensure that parents with care recognise that, if they wish that maintenance to flow reliably, one of the best ways to achieve this is to ensure that contact is maintained. That will not only ensure that maintenance flows, it is also good for the child. This seems to me to be the youthful, appropriate and practical way in which young men in particular will be encouraged to face up to their responsibilities. It is not a matter of having declaratory statements on the face of a Bill, which, frankly, will have far less circulation than is the case with the White and Green Papers that I mentioned.

Lord Renton: I am sorry to trouble the noble Baroness again, but she said that the matters raised in the noble Lord's amendment are beyond the scope of the Bill. However, the first part of the Long Title to the Bill says that its purpose is:
	"To amend the law relating to child support".
	That is just what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.

Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has just made the point that I intended to make. Indeed, the fact that non-financial support is, and should be, included in the concept of child support is self-evident from the Government's Green Paper on the subject.
	I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response on this issue. Although we agree on the principles of what is desirable, I believe that we are quite far apart on the way of achieving those objectives. I personally believe that something in the nature of a declaratory statement--an aspiratory statement--should be on the face of the Bill. Indeed, without it, I think that the Bill denigrates the role of fathers, thereby creating a sense of lack of worth and, therefore, unfairness and resentment. I believe that that will motivate against the success of the Bill.
	I believe that such a statement should be included in the interests of the better nurturing of children in separated families. The issues are extremely important and it is, therefore, important that the Government should at least give a balanced picture in this respect. In that context, I have to differ with the Minister that the Green and White Papers are adequate. The Green Paper leads up to the White Paper, which, in fact, says a great deal less on this issue. The White Paper then leads to the Bill, which says nothing at all about it.
	The conclusion of any reasonable person is that the Government have actually dropped these ancillary considerations. The Government must do more and say what they actually believe. If the noble Baroness can tell me where and when the Government will address these matters in public in a way that will correct the imbalance implicit in the Bill, I shall be happy not to return to the amendment at further stages of the Bill. When are the Government going to say to young men, "If you get a girl pregnant, it is just as much your fault as hers"? When are they going to say to them, "To bring a child into the world when you have no intention of supporting it, caring for it or loving it, is a form of child abuse"? When are they going to say to young mothers, "Your child needs his father. If you exclude the father from his life, you're likely to be damaging your child's chances"?
	More simply, when are the Government going to say to schools, "Bring the fathers in to work with you and to support their child's learning. This will help boys and girls to understand the importance of a child to his father"? If the noble Baroness can convince the Committee that all this will happen soon and that it will be said loudly so that the whole country hears, I shall gladly not pursue the issue at further stages of Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Northern Ireland: Developments

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
	"I will, with permission, make a Statement about recent developments in Northern Ireland, and the declaration issued over the weekend by the Provisional IRA.
	"On 11th February, I took the decision to suspend the political institutions which had been established barely 10 weeks earlier under the Good Friday agreement.
	"I did so reluctantly, for reasons with which the House is familiar. If I had not done so, there would not only have been a collapse of the institutions, but a total collapse of confidence within unionism, from which the political process would not have been able to recover for a very long time.
	"From that moment in February, we and the Irish Government have worked closely, at all levels, to restore the situation. As at so many crucial points in the past, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have committed time and energy on a scale that must be unprecedented for busy heads of government. I have kept in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister. There have been intensive discussions with the parties, in the most constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank officials in both governments whose efforts have been tireless.
	"Our aim has been to achieve the clarity about the IRA's intentions which was noticeably lacking in February; by doing so to rebuild unionist confidence; and thereby to re-establish the institutions.
	"This could not be done quickly. Suspension was a bruising experience for all concerned. Unionists were disappointed that expectations raised during Senator Mitchell's review were not fulfilled. Republicans, and indeed many nationalists, saw great symbolic significance in a British Secretary of State acting to suspend local institutions as I did. People of good will on all sides were saddened that arrangements which had promised so much had proved impossible to sustain.
	"If unionists need the confidence that the IRA is genuinely committed to the path of peace and willing to put its arms beyond use, republicans need to know that the vision which the agreement offers, of a just and equal society in which both traditions are respected, will actually be realised.
	"We and the Irish Government therefore drew up an account of the remaining steps necessary to secure the full implementation of the agreement. Details were communicated to the parties on Saturday morning. I am placing a copy in the Library.
	"The two governments believe that these steps can be achieved by June 2001. In a statement published on Friday evening, we have committed ourselves to that goal.
	"The two governments also called on the paramilitaries to state clearly and urgently that they will put their arms beyond use.
	"For our part, we the British Government indicated that such statements would constitute a clear reduction in the security threat. In response, subject to assessment of the threat at the time, further substantial measures to normalise security arrangements will be taken by June 2001.
	"I am not yet able to say what initial measures will be taken. The Chief Constable is considering in consultation with the Army the situation in the light of the IRA statement with a view to what might be done now and in the period ahead if and when the threat reduces. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. But equally there is no doubt that the statements of the kind I have described impact positively on the assessment of the threat.
	"As the House will know, the IRA made such a statement on Saturday afternoon. In the context of the governments implementing what they have agreed, the IRA committed itself to,
	'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use'.
	"That is not maybe, not might, but will. It went on:
	'We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum confidence'.
	"In the same context, the IRA committed itself to,
	'pursue our respective political objectives peacefully'.
	"The statement further committed the IRA to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, under General John de Chastelain. It noted that the IRA's arms are 'silent and secure', and that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA.
	"In addition, the statement committed the IRA to put in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure. Independent inspectors will scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the de Chastelain commission. It will be an ongoing process, with regular re-inspections.
	"It is important that we now hear, in similar terms, from the main loyalist organisations.
	"Since the IRA made its statement, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have announced that Mr Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the African National Congress and now a prominent businessman in South Africa, both widely respected international figures, have agreed to head the inspections. I am pleased to be able to announce that they will pay their first visit to Belfast next Monday, and I am grateful to them for their speedy response at such short notice.
	"I regard the IRA statement as a very significant development.
	"For the first time, there is a commitment to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, in a context which is realistic rather than simply aspirational. There is a real prospect of actually achieving decommissioning--no longer just talking about it, or setting conditions for it which make its realisation less likely.
	"There is a more clear-cut assurance of the IRA's peaceful intentions than we have ever heard before. And, as an earnest of these intentions, there is an unprecedented willingness to allow independent third parties to inspect arms dumps containing weapons, explosives and detonators and vouch for their continuing security. An essential element of the scheme is that the process should be continuous, to provide reassurance that dumps have not been tampered with, and weapons have not been removed, between inspections.
	"The right honourable Member for Upper Bann has acknowledged the significance of the IRA statement, and the fact that it appears to break new ground. Not surprisingly, he wishes to examine it carefully, and weigh its implications.
	"That is entirely understandable. He will also want to be confident, as I will, that in moving forward with the agreement, the traditions and concerns of the unionist people will be respected and dealt with sensitively, just as much as the traditions and concerns of nationalists.
	"I believe that all friends and supporters of responsible forward-looking unionism will conclude that the proposals I have outlined today, buttressed by the weekend's statement by the IRA, provide the conditions on which he can lead his party back into government.
	"On the basis of such a positive response to these proposals, not only from his party but all the proagreement parties, I can confirm to the House that I will bring forward the necessary order to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive by 22nd May.
	"In this event, I feel hopeful and confident that the ultimate prize--stable, inclusive government in Northern Ireland and an unbreakable peace--will at long last be within our grasp".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I am particularly pleased at the possibility that once again we shall be able to restore democracy to Northern Ireland and that the Executive will be reinstated. It was suspended by the Secretary of State with the full agreement and support of my party. I believe that without that action we would not be where we are today with the kind of opportunities that are now ahead of us.
	Although I welcome the IRA's commitment to,
	'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use',
	I have to be a little cynical. However, this appears to be a step forward. It does indeed appear to go a step further than the IRA has ever gone before. That gives us hope. I should also like to make the point that the so-called loyalist paramilitaries are notably silent. I hope that they will come to the table soon.
	However--rather cynically again, perhaps--I believe that we are observing a life-and-death game being played by some of the best spinners in the world on a very sticky wicket. As an Ulsterman, while sincerely hoping that we are watching the end game which will terminate in peace and good will for everyone, I do not believe that life in Northern Ireland is like that. I still need and have to ask for reassurances. I have a number of questions that I should like the Minister to answer.
	While welcoming arms and Semtex being put beyond use, how can the Secretary of State guarantee that they will never be used again? That is a serious process. The Sinn Fein Statement refers only to a number of arms dumps being open for inspection. What percentage of the IRA's total armoury will this represent? What is the follow up for the remainder?
	Can the Minister again reassure the House that, despite any agreements made recently between the Prime Minister and the Taioseach--I know that this is in the Secretary of State's statement--the process of security normalisation will continue to take into account the threat, as advised by the Chief Constable and the GOC, and that security reductions will not take place for political reasons?
	What will constitute a default by the IRA? In the case of an IRA default, what action is the Secretary of State prepared to take? Will the Minister confirm that in the event of a default he will not hesitate to suspend the institutions once again?
	The Unionist Party will require answers to these questions. It may not be clearly understood by all of the population of this country, but we are talking about confidence and trust that has been shattered, shattered and shattered again over the past number of years.
	The IRA statement refers once again to this process being about removing the causes of conflict--by which it means partition and the British presence. Will the Minister confirm that the acceptance of the Good Friday agreement means accepting the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom, and that there can be absolutely no question of that changing without the consent of the people?
	Finally, the road to a Northern Ireland settlement has been long and hard. We are still moving--and we are still moving forward--thanks to a great deal of hard work and the patience of many, many people. But no one should be surprised if there are many, many more miles and late nights to go. However, we on this side sincerely hope that the statement from the IRA and this Statement from the Government mean that the future for Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland once again looks as though it might return to normality, and that the people there will be encouraged and morale raised.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State earlier today in another place. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech.
	Potentially, the Statement provides the greatest cause for optimism since the Good Friday agreement itself that real progress can now be made in achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It offers a welcome reprieve from the two steps forward, one step back fandango that has exasperatingly characterised the process over the past two years. The prospects for agreement outlined in the Statement mean, it is to be hoped, that the iron law of history, which has scuppered hitherto all initiatives for peace, is itself about to be sundered. Let us hope and pray that such proves to be the case.
	Much of the credit must go to the leaders of the pro-agreement parties. They have worked extremely well during the time since the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive. Most importantly, Sinn Fein has responded to the needs of the situation, which became very acute following the reimposition of direct rule. From all sides of your Lordships' House and beyond went the call for a positive move on arms by the IRA, and Sinn Fein appears to have achieved that. The IRA assurance that its ordnance is no longer to be used for violence and that its neutralising is to be regularly verified by respected international authorities is welcome, if overdue. We on these Benches salute the maturity and skill shown by the three largest pro-agreement political parties during the difficult period since the suspension of the Assembly.
	We are grateful also for the efforts made by successive Secretaries of State, all of which have contributed to this apparent breakthrough. The present Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson, has clearly brought his special expertise to the problems raised in the aftermath of suspending the fledgling Assembly. It was a fearful gamble which he has pulled off; he deserves our congratulations. We hope, too, that other paramilitary organisations will respond positively to this IRA statement. But much still needs to be done in the case of Northern Ireland. I hope that the rumours are wrong and that Mr Mandelson is not soon to be reshuffled.
	While peace is a necessary prerequisite, the real goal is to see the establishment of authentic, democratic politics in Northern Ireland. The substance of the Statement makes that a real possibility, which all of those who have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart must pray for. The opportunity must be seized. We trust that the forthcoming meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council will support Mr Trimble in the stance that he has taken. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any information in regard to other paramilitary organisations following suit.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the general tone of the statements made by noble Lords from the two Opposition Front Benches; for their recognition of the potential significance of what has happened; and for echoing the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place that it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations.
	Perhaps I may deal with a number of the questions raised in the course of the noble Lords' remarks. How can we be sure that the weapons will never be used again? The significance of the Statement is that the IRA leadership has said that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. So it is committing itself to putting IRA arms beyond use. How that will be done technically is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission. The IRA also states in its statement that it will resume contact with the Independent International Commission on decommissioning and enter into further discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms. So how it will be done--the technicalities and modalities of it--is a matter to be discussed with the decommissioning commission. What percentage is envisaged? It is envisaged by the commitment that the IRA's arms will be put beyond use.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wished me to emphasise that decisions about security are to be made on the basis of the threat that exists at any one moment and not on the basis of trading security measures against political process. I am happy to give him that assurance. As he rightly said, that assurance was given in my right honourable friend's Statement in another place. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress.
	I was asked what the position would be if there was default by the IRA. Under the statement there is a commitment by the IRA to decommissioning coupled with a commitment to the confidence-building measure of allowing an independent inspection, repeated by regular verifying inspections, of arms dumps. That is the commitment that must be looked at. Let us hope that that is what the IRA does. It would be unwise to say what the consequences of not doing it would be. Let us look to the future. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reiterate that the Good Friday agreement depends on the principle of consent. Of course I reiterate that.
	I think that I have dealt with all of the questions raised by noble Lords on the Front Benches.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, given that the Belfast agreement committed all of the participants to exclusively peaceful means, how do Her Majesty's Government regard this morning's announcement by Mr Adams that his IRA standing army will be retained in perpetuity? Why should a political party in government in Northern Ireland need a standing army? With that goes the fact that some of the IRA's weapons will be stored and protected. Only some, because the Statement itself says that only a number of the dumps will be inspected. Lastly, how do Her Majesty's Government justify that glaring betrayal of those who supported the Belfast agreement, not least Mr Trimble and his colleagues?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the IRA statement contains two things: first, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning; and, separately from that, there is a commitment to a confidence-building measure; namely, the inspection of the arms dumps by the independent observers, Mr Ahtisaari and Mr Ramaphosa. Those are two separate things. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the arms dumps is the decommissioning. That is a confidence-building measure. What is significant, apart from that confidence-building measure, is the commitment itself to decommissioning, something we have not heard before from the IRA, as was recognised by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith.
	As to the statement made by Mr Adams, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred, unfortunately, I do not know of that specific statement and so I am not in a position to make any comment on it. What is clear from the IRA's statement is that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. That is a significant step forward.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having got this far, even though there are still hurdles ahead, and I wish David Trimble and John Taylor good luck in the coming days. David Trimble will have to draw again on his reserves of courage and tenacity to see him through the next stage of this important process. Can my noble and learned friend say anything about paramilitary attacks, whether carried out by loyalists or republicans, which have been a scourge on Northern Ireland? I very much hope that the agreement, when implemented, will see an end to these deplorable attacks, which have caused so much pain and suffering to many people there.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about where we have reached. I share with him the recognition that there are many hurdles ahead. I deplore with him the paramilitary attacks. I very much hope that the effect of the statement and the developments over the weekend will lead to a reduction in the number of paramilitary attacks.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in recent years the Government of the Republic of Ireland have played a valuable part in helping the United Kingdom Government to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that on this occasion too the Government of the Republic have played a valuable part?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I most certainly can. As the Statement made in another place revealed, it was the governments jointly setting out what they thought were the necessary steps to implement the Good Friday agreement that was the start of this recent stage in the peace process.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that, as someone who for 25 years was involved in counter-terrorist operations on three different continents, no one wishes more than I do to see this peace process succeed? But will he also accept that it would be very unwise to place too much credence on the unequivocal assurances of terrorist organisations? That way may lie disaster.
	Perhaps I may repeat three of the questions which have been raised in your Lordships' House today but which will need answers that will satisfy not only the unionists in Northern Ireland but most of the population of the country whose lives are at risk as much as anyone else's from the operations of the terrorists. First, do we know that all the IRA arms are in the dumps that are being opened to inspection, or are there other dumps with weapons in them that will not be seen? Secondly, is there any way in which it is intended that these weapons should be immobilised, by removing such things as firing pins and fuses, so that they could not be used even if they were removed from the dumps? Finally, how will the dumps be guarded so that if people change their minds about the unequivocal assurances they cannot descend on the dumps, remove the weapons and use them? I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to answer those questions today but can he at least give an assurance that the Government will demand unequivocal and satisfactory answers to those questions before they carry this process any further?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I make clear what the effect of the IRA statement is. It is an unequivocal commitment verifiably to put beyond use the IRA's arms. That is the unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, is agreeing that the two independent observers should be given access to inspect weapons dumps and that they should thereafter be able to inspect them regularly. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the weapons dumps constitutes the decommissioning, but it is a measure designed to build confidence in the process. There are two separate things in this statement, both of which represent a significant way forward. In order to deal with the commitment to decommission, there has to be a verifiable way in which the arms are put beyond use. That is what the IRA committed itself to in the statement. How that is done is a matter to be determined between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain what appears to be a contradiction in the Statement? He began by telling us that there was an unequivocal undertaking to put the arms beyond use. Then he went on to say that there would be continuing inspection of the arms dumps to ensure that none of the weapons was removed. If they are beyond use, what would be the purpose of removing them?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I obviously have not made my position adequately clear. The statement from the IRA is saying that it is giving two separate things. The first is an unequivocal assurance to put its arms beyond use; in effect, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, it is agreeing to the inspection of arms dumps by independent inspectors. It is not suggesting that that equals decommissioning. It is simply a confidence-building measure so that the process can begin and people can have confidence in it. We are not suggesting for one moment that the inspection process of the arms dumps equals decommissioning. It is being put forward as a confidence-building measure.

Lord Blease: My Lords, I am very pleased, indeed grateful, for the way in which the Opposition Benches have accepted the Statement. The approach is constructive and offers hope for the measures that lie ahead. I believe that the Statement makes it possible to achieve honest and effective working relationships in Northern Ireland and to promote measures to achieve honourable, just and lasting democratic political institutions which will bring about effective government in the Province.
	I should like to comment on one reference in the Statement. It is most reassuring that the Secretary of State made this point; he was aware of how people would feel. He states,
	'I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress'.
	Those are the most potent lines in the Statement. I look forward to enjoying the days ahead when people will work together to meet the need of the people in Northern Ireland for hospitals, work and the care of children. Those essential matters have been neglected for so long.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for the Statement. I thank him also for drawing attention to a very important part of it.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister has been extremely patient while being pushed on a particular point. However, the worry about the phrase "beyond use" is not merely semantic; it relates to the realities. Is it synonymous with being prepared to destroy the weapons or with being prepared, under whatever supervision, to destroy them or surrender them to some other body? Presumably, "beyond use" can equally mean one of those two things: either the weapons are surrendered, on whatever terms the IRA is prepared to accept, to some other body of its choice or to an agreed body; or alternatively, they are destroyed. The phrase "beyond use" worries a number of us. It seems to have some hidden definition, probably known only to the IRA and Ministers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said, the IRA has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to put arms completely and verifiably beyond use. That is what the decommissioning Act required. The Act states that arms must be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or unusable. The IRA has said that that is what it will do. I do not think that there is any sinister meaning as suggested by the noble Lord.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, during the first 10 years of the 30-year problem in Northern Ireland, the Army were in charge of security; the RUC was swamped. From 1978, and increasingly, the Chief Constable and the RUC have been in charge of security. Given the announcement made by my noble friend about the role of the two prominent figures from outside the country, what role will the Chief Constable play? Will he be brought into all discussions? He is the one to decide whether he is satisfied with the security arrangements.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I hope the Statement makes clear, it is for the Chief Constable to make the security assessment. Perhaps I may repeat, because it is extremely important, that there is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. The question of what level of security is required is to be made entirely on the basis of the threat. As has been made clear, if the situation changes in terms of the peace process, that might have an effect on security decisions; but ultimately, it is for the Chief Constable, in consultation with the security forces, to determine the level of threat and make appropriate arrangements.
	Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I am told that the phrase used in the decommissioning Act is "beyond use", the same as that used in the IRA statement.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the fact that the statement made by the IRA is one of the clearest that it has made for a number of years has to be seen as a good sign. IRA statements in the past have been criticised for the nature of the semantics used; that is why this statement has to be seen as a good sign.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. There is no doubt that this statement is very significant indeed.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the negotiations that took place behind the scenes before the issuing of this statement, was any pressure used on the IRA as an organisation to show its bona fides in this area? From now until June next year, will it stop the knee-capping and the murderous attacks on individuals? The IRA has said in its statement that its arms are silent and secure. Tell that to young people in Northern Ireland among whom there are almost daily knee-cappings. The IRA has said that it wants to build confidence. Will the Minister suggest to it that the best way to build confidence in Northern Ireland is to take steps to prevent such murderous attacks? Will the Minister put a suggestion to the IRA? If it intends finally to decommission by June next year, in the run-up between now and then are we to accept that the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries will be able to carry out such attacks on civilians? Would it be possible after 22nd May, when the institutions are brought back into being, for the IRA to reciprocate by, for example, putting Semtex out of its control? That would build confidence within the unionist community that the IRA means what it says.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, we deplore all paramilitary attacks of whatever sort. We very much hope that they will be reduced as a result of what has happened in the past few weeks.
	As I have indicated, the commitment made in the IRA statement is unequivocally to put weapons beyond use. How precisely it is to be done is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has emphasised two different points over and again: first, the confidence-building measure--namely, the inspections; and secondly, decommissioning. As I understand the timetable announced in the Statement, the date given being 22nd May, it is unlikely, to say the least, that any decommissioning per se will happen before that date.
	Confidence-building measures would have to include inspections over the border in the Irish Republic as well as in the North. Otherwise, I doubt that they will provide the confidence that the noble and learned Lord and indeed I would like.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the commitment in relation to the confidence-building measure is in respect of inspection by the two named people of existing arms dumps. Where that inspection takes place depends on where the dumps are. I should have thought that they are most likely to be in the South.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am one of those who believe that there has been a limited move forward in the exercise over the weekend. However, I endorse much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others. I am one of those who, together with a number of other Members of this House, will be making the decision, as part of the Ulster Unionist Council, about Ulster Unionist participation in the Executive. I should like the Minister to be aware that there is not yet sufficient clarification. The answers given today have not clarified much. I should like the Minister to explain what exactly is meant by the word "some"--the phrase "some dumps" is used. We have not received clarification on that extremely important point.
	There also seems to be confusion over part of the Statement and the answers given as to whether this is a question of "beyond use" or "decommissioning". The point requires clarification. These are the kinds of issues that we must sort out. Last year the Ulster Unionists bought a second-hand car which did not start. We shall be much more careful next time we buy a second-hand car from the same dealer. I believe that people expect us to do nothing less.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we understand that the confidence-building measure will involve arms in three dumps which most likely will be in the South. The dumps will contain a substantial amount of weapons, explosives and detonators. There is no suggestion that these are all the dumps, because this is a confidence-building measure. Those dumps will be inspected by the named independent third parties who will then report to the commission on decommissioning.

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I speak as an unrepentant, unqualified admirer of the Government's initiative in the peace process. I also congratulate Mr Mandelson in particular on this occasion. Does the noble and learned Lord agree it is inconceivable that the IRA will give up all of its arms without any response from the Protestant paramilitaries? What steps are being taken to ensure that there is some response on that side?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I reiterate what has been said on all sides. In the light of what has been said by the IRA, it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations. The peace process depends as much on that as anything else.

Sierra Leone

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"Over the past week RUF rebels have broken their commitment to the Lome Peace Agreement and returned to conflict. They have made a number of attacks on the UN forces and on demobilisation camps. At least four Kenyan members of the UN forces have been killed in action. Around 500 UN personnel have been detained, including one British UN military observer.
	"At the weekend the rebels appeared to be moving on Freetown. The situation in Freetown is tense. I spoke at midday to our High Commissioner there who reported that the police had been successful in arresting a number of rebel bands and seizing arms which they had been about to distribute.
	"Tens of thousands of residents of Freetown loyal to President Kabbah have today marched on the residence of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, which they have surrounded. From about one o'clock this afternoon the sound of gunfire could be heard from that location. This development has serious implications for the security situation within Freetown and the future actions of rebel forces commanded by Foday Sankoh.
	"Our first duty is to protect the lives of British citizens in Sierra Leone and others to whom we have consular responsibility. We believe that there are up to 500 British nationals in Sierra Leone, mostly in the Freetown area. There is a smaller number of European Union and Commonwealth nationals without diplomatic representation for whom we have consular responsibility.
	"Our immediate advice to British residents in Freetown is to stay indoors. This afternoon the High Commission has activated its evacuation plan and is contacting British residents through the local warden network to give them the necessary instructions.
	"In view of the limited commercial opportunities to leave Sierra Leone and the current insecurity, we have taken the precautionary measure to deploy a number of British military assets to West Africa.
	"The forward elements of the current spearhead battalion, the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, arrived in Dakar, Senegal, over the weekend. The battalion is currently moving from Dakar to Freetown. In addition, HMS "Ocean" and support vessels, with 42 Commando and a number of helicopters, are moving towards the region and will be in Sierra Leone early next week. HMS "Illustrious" has been withdrawn from NATO exercises to be used if needed.
	"These measures have been taken to ensure that we are best placed to respond quickly to safeguard the security of British nationals. Our forces will ensure the security of Sierra Leone's international airport. This is not only of immediate utility for the evacuation, but is also valuable in allowing the UN forces to continue to build up.
	"The UN force is currently about 3,000 short of its mandated strength of over 11,000. We are urging the nations contributing to the UN force to expedite the additional numbers. I spoke last night to Madeleine Albright, and I welcome the US offer to consider a strategic airlift to fly in units from the Jordanian and Bangladeshi armies.
	"I have also spoken to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and offered further logistical support, such as vehicles, for the UN force. I pressed upon him that one of the immediate lessons of the past few days is that nations contributing forces to the UN must also contribute the equipment necessary to fulfil their mandate.
	"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just spoken to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, the major regional state, to discuss what immediate assistance Nigeria can contribute to the UN forces.
	"The responsibility for the current outbreak of violence lies squarely with the RUF rebels and their leader Forday Sankoh. A year ago he committed himself to a peace process which offered rehabilitation and retraining to his troops in exchange for demilitarisation. Considerable progress had been made on that process. UN forces had deployed across two-thirds of the country, almost half the armed groups had registered at demobilisation centres and a significant quantity of weapons had been surrendered. Work had begun on training a new defence force for the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone and on preparations for democratic elections next year. All that progress has been put at risk by the RUF reneging on the commitments that it made.
	"One of the triggers of the current conflict appears to have been the attempt by the UN forces to enter the diamond-producing region which is held by the RUF and provides it with weapons and friends. This development underlines the importance of the international debate, in which Britain has been a leading voice, for more transparent regulation of the trade in uncut diamonds. We should not allow diamonds to be sold for weapons or at the cost of lives.
	"I want to make it clear to the House and to the people of Sierra Leone that Britain will not abandon its commitment to that country. Britain has done more than any other country outside the region to restore legitimate government in Sierra Leone. We are the largest national donor to the peace process. We hosted the international donors' conference earlier this year and we are in the lead in training the new army for the Government of Sierra Leone. We shall continue to take the lead at the UN and elsewhere to restore the peace process. We must not allow a few thousand rebels to prevent the end to violence and the peace in which to get on with their lives, for which the 3 million people of Sierra Leone desperately hunger".
	My Lords, That concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and updating the House on what is clearly a very serious situation. We welcome and support the sensible and appropriate measures that are being taken to prepare for any evacuation of British and other nationals. The force that has been assembled for this purpose--one-and-a-half, or perhaps two, battalions and five ships--appears to be quite a large one. I am mildly surprised that there are still 500 British nationals in Freetown and surrounding areas when everyone, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, knows what a dangerous place it has become and how the rule of law has evaporated in many parts of that unhappy, and pathetically poor, country. But if that is what is necessary to get people out safely, it has our full support.
	I should like to put a number of questions. First, can the Minister reassure the House that this large force is solely for evacuation and rescue? Can the noble Baroness elaborate on the words "further logistical support"? The House needs to be reassured that this is not the beginning of an entanglement, by a side door as it were, in the whole UN operation that is in difficulties. If evacuation is the purpose, could that be made absolutely clear? When does it begin? We gather that some military units have already been ashore for a day or two in Freetown. What is their aim beyond securing the airport? How long does the Minister think that it will all take?
	On the broader scene, the UN operation was supposed to be a showpiece. People were saying that if we cannot get it right in Sierra Leone all hope is lost in Africa, and such words. We should now like to know where the UN operation is heading. At the moment the direction appears to be downwards. What line are Her Majesty's Government taking at the United Nations in support of pulling the operation together? At present, the operation looks in extremely bad shape.
	Has the Minister a view, first, on the reports of huge illegal arms shipments going in through Burkina Faso to the rebels to the general chaos of the country? Secondly--my question relates to an issue raised many times by my noble friend on another crisis in Africa, Zimbabwe--has the Commonwealth a role? It is a Commonwealth country. It is part of the Commonwealth scene. I should like to believe that the Commonwealth has a positive role but I have heard nothing of that from the Government.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Perhaps I may also express our strong support for the very bold action taken by the Foreign Office to protect the interests and lives of British citizens and others in Sierra Leone for whom we have consular responsibility. I should be grateful if we could express the sympathy of the House for those UN peacekeepers who have lost their lives, many from Commonwealth countries which responded to the request from the Secretary-General to send troops to Sierra Leone.
	It seems clear that the betrayal by Foday Sankoh of the peace agreement reached only a few months ago--he was invited into the government in exchange for co-operating on the restructuring of the security forces and the retraining of the army--has been a betrayal not only of his own people but of all the people of Sierra Leone. I hope that the Minister can assure us that we shall not pursue further any attempt to negotiate with a man of such evident false standing.
	Perhaps I may ask three questions. The first concerns where our responsibilities begin and end. In the Statement the noble Baroness mentioned that we have consular responsibilities beyond those to British citizens. Perhaps she can enlighten us a little further. Can she also enlighten us on the position we would take if UN peacekeepers close to British forces, in a situation of danger to themselves, were to plead for our assistance to rescue them from, for example, hostage situations?
	The second question concerns the position of the diamond trade in this continuing bitter civil war. It is notable that exactly the same has been true in Angola for an equally long time. Can the Minister tell us--she was able to do so with regard to Angola--what steps the British Government are taking to identify rough diamonds and in particular to strengthen the sanctions with regard to trade in Antwerp and other traditional diamond centres which appear not to be upholding the sanctions as much as they should?
	Finally--it is the only critical note I have--should we reconsider the link between armies being made available and equipment? Clearly a country such as Bangladesh has no heavy-lift equipment and can get the troops who are so welcome to support the UN effort in Sierra Leone only if equipment is made available. The Minister will be well aware that one of the major UN members, the United States, is almost invariably reluctant to send troops but happy to offer heavy-lift and other essential equipment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I endorse entirely the expressions of sympathy offered in relation to this sad situation. I can reassure the noble Lord that evacuation and rescue is the focus for Her Majesty's Government's intervention--the security of those individuals, the British and those others for whom we are responsible. In reply to the noble Baroness's point, we are responsible for our own British nationals but we have also accepted responsibility in consular terms for EU, US and Commonwealth citizens who may also be there. It is not simply our 500 for whom we express real anxiety.
	Our first move must be to secure the airport. It is a central point. I believe that the evacuation of certain British nationals may have started as we speak. That situation is developing rapidly on the ground. Our High Commissioner there will be liaising directly with the other authorities to keep a close eye on that dangerous situation.
	I was asked where the UN operation was heading. Noble Lords will know well that this UN operation was put in place as perhaps the most helpful effort in the past 10 years finally to bring security and sanity to this area of the world. It is regrettable that the force--it should have been over 11,000--was only 8,000. We are doing all we can to encourage those involved to send the personnel and equipment as quickly as possible.
	I endorse what has been said about the behaviour of the leader, Foday Sankoh. Much trust was placed in him--most importantly, the trust of the Sierra Leone people. The new government was to be a positive way forward. All of us hoped that it could and would be achieved.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says, diamonds are a matter of great importance. I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is today considering further measures that we can take with our EU partners in relation to diamonds and may be making comments in that regard as I speak but which I am unable to voice fully in this House at this moment.
	On arms, we shall consider carefully these issues. I hope that noble Lords will understand that security of our Armed Forces and those currently in Sierra Leone is the most important issue at this time. I am unable to disclose to your Lordships the details in relation to those matters.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is particularly welcome news that the Prime Minister is in touch with the Prime Minister of Nigeria and that we have taken such apt precautionary measures at the seizure of the Freeport airfield. I welcome all that. I am sure the Government are right in taking action, as all governments must do, to protect their own nationals when they are in danger.
	However, I worry whether that is enough. I do not say that we should do more individually as a country, but it is a terrible humiliation of and rebuff for the United Nations. The United Nations is the only, last, best hope for peace at the beginning of this century. Should we not at least bring together the Security Council for immediate and urgent consideration of the further measures needed to restore the authority, status and reputation of the UN?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that this is a rebuff; and it is a matter that we must all take increasingly seriously. I cannot say whether it would be right, at this moment, to call for a meeting of the Security Council but I can assure your Lordships that every possible way forward is being actively considered. Nothing is being left out.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the joint UN/RUF mission which was supposed to locate and, if possible, rescue the UN hostages? The noble Baroness told the House that the British troops being sent to Freetown will not have responsibility for rescuing the UN troops who are being held hostage. If the mission is unsuccessful, what fall-back plans does the United Nations have--was this issue discussed yesterday at the Security Council?--for rescuing the 500 people now detained by the RUF?
	What information do the Government have on the allegations of a coup, which was supposed to be launched today, and the arrest of senior RUF personnel, who were alleged to be responsible for it, by troops loyal to the AFRC in Freetown? Have charges been laid against Mr Mike Lamin or others alleged to have been involved in the coup? Do the Government consider that the remit of UNAMSIL was sufficiently clear in that, although SCR1289 required them to provide security, to enable people to move freely and to co-ordinate with the Sierra Leone authorities on the administration of law and order, there is no specific mention in the UN resolution of how they are supposed to respond if they come under fire? Is it the task of UNAMSIL to neutralise any group which fails to honour the peace agreement? If so, is it not essential that UNAMSIL detachments which find themselves under fire should be able to call for rapid reinforcements from the rest of UN forces in the territory and that they should have the logistics to enable them to do so?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and his hunger for in-depth information. I hope that he will understand the limits currently placed on any disclosures I can make as regards precisely what is happening on the ground. We must do nothing to exacerbate or inflame the situation.
	Our troops are on their way and we shall know more once we have people on the ground. Their main task is to bring out citizens safely. The situation is rapidly changing and I am sure that the noble Lord knows that UNAMSIL has a broad mandate. It certainly has a mandate to keep its own security as a priority, but this is a fluid and rapidly changing situation. It is perhaps best at this stage for us to respond moderately and to wait to see what we discover in detail on the ground.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, what consultations have the British Government had with our European partners? After all, one of the contexts of the European defence initiative has been that the operation one might envisage for the new battle reaction force would be to help to prop up collapsing states. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that consultations should have taken place.
	Furthermore, can the Minister confirm that British interests in Sierra Leone are not simply those of rescuing British nationals? As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a position which the Conservative Party among others is strongly committed to Britain retaining, we have a strong interest in maintaining the authority of the United Nations and, thus, in ensuring that the UN does not fail in its commitment to Sierra Leone.
	Can the Minister also comment on the refugee issue? We in this country have learnt bitterly that when states collapse in Africa some of their desperate refugees turn up, legally or illegally, within the EU. We have a substantial Somali community in London and elsewhere in Britain which was not here 10 years ago. I am not sure how they got here, but somehow they did. That confirms that it is greatly in Britain's interest to ensure that Sierra Leone does not collapse as a state.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the import of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. We are consulting our EU partners in relation to what is happening in Sierra Leone. It has been agreed that we should take the brunt of the rescue mission, which is why we and our forces are going in to rescue British, EU and Commonwealth nationals from the situation. We are going in not only to do that, but to try to maintain the authority of the UN. The noble Lord is right in pointing that out, but at this stage our primary focus must be to secure the situation and rescue the nationals for whom we have accepted responsibility.
	We have a continuing commitment to Sierra Leone and we have tried to make that clear. Once the nationals have been removed, we shall participate and encourage a reconstruction in terms of how Sierra Leone works. The refugee situation will be another complex issue with which we shall have to deal and it is with great energy that we shall try to address our minds to any fall-out that may come from that. However, it is a rapidly developing situation and we are communicating with all our partners to try to get a focused and cohesive response to the difficulty.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, bearing in mind the complaints that radio equipment did not work for our troops in Kosovo and that the rifles with which our infantry were supplied needed to be modified, can the Minister assure the House that the troops whom we have sent to West Africa have a suitable supply of radio equipment that works and additional equipment which they can lend to UN troops already there so that they can communicate with them? Furthermore, will she assure the House that the troops who have already left have properly modified weapons?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the officers and men and women whom we have sent are appropriately equipped for the task with which they must deal. We understand that that task will be complex.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 5.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 5.26 to 5.30 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

House again in Committee.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
	Clause 1 [Maintenance calculations and terminology]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 11, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").

Lord Higgins: Before we adjourned for the Statements, we were discussing matters of enormous and wide-ranging importance with regard to social security policy. Amendment No. 6 is at the other end of the spectrum, both politically and technically. It seeks merely to increase a time limit in the Bill from one to two months.
	Under the Bill, the parent with care has one month in which to respond to a letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to cease dealing with an application. If she does not want it to stop, she may be considered a voluntary client of the agency without further application. If the parent with care misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.
	With our passionate desire to improve the Bill, I believe that this amendment would be suitable because we know that, one way or another, communications may well be prolonged. Two things may happen if the individual concerned is not aware of the situation within a month: first, there will be further delay while the process that I have just described continues and eventually is concluded; and, secondly, if she goes through those lengthier proceedings, she may lose some degree of maintenance because it is calculated from the date when the new procedure is concluded rather than when she writes rapidly saying that she wants the Secretary of State to go ahead. I hope that the Minister will consider the proposal to be an improvement rather than otherwise. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this amendment increases the time limit within which a parent with care must notify the CSA if she wants to continue as a voluntary client when she leaves benefit before a maintenance calculation is made.
	Clause 1 provides the basis for maintenance calculations. It substitutes a new Section 11 dealing with the rules for maintenance calculations in the 1991 Act. New Section 11 (subsections (3) to (5)) requires the Secretary of State to stop acting on an application for child support treated as made under Section 6(3) if he becomes aware that the parent with care has left benefit before the maintenance calculation has been made.
	The treating of an application for child support "as made" when a claim for benefit is made streamlines the way in which parents with care who claim or receive benefit apply for child support. It will ensure that parents with care who claim income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance receive a seamless maintenance service at the same time.
	Under the current scheme, a parent with care who claims income support or income-based JSA can be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child maintenance. She is not required to do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there would be a risk that she, or any child living with her, would suffer harm or undue distress. This is known as "good cause". However, child support arrangements can be made only after a formal application for maintenance has been made.
	In the reformed child support scheme, only those parents who need to will take action to opt out of making a claim for child support. That will ensure easy access to the new system which will provide a regular and reliable flow of maintenance and a better service for parents.
	However, if a parent with care, who has had an application for maintenance treated as made under Section 6(3), leaves benefit before the maintenance calculation is made, she can instead ask the agency to treat her application as voluntary under Section 4 of the 1991 Act. Action to pursue child maintenance would otherwise cease in those cases. If there is no court order or pre-1993 written maintenance agreement in place to prevent that, the Secretary of State can then continue the process of determining child support liability. That avoids a delay in liability coming into effect.
	The parent with care has one month to respond to the letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to stop acting. If she does not want action to stop, she may then be considered as a voluntary client by the agency without any further application. If the parent with care in this situation misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will instead pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.
	The one-month period exists in the current scheme. It gives the parent with care a reasonable amount of time while not requiring the CSA to suspend action for too long. It is consistent with other time limits; for example, with regard to disputing and appealing decisions. Therefore, the one-month time limit goes across the board.
	We have no evidence to suggest that the existing one-month time limit causes a problem at the moment. I have not heard anything from the noble Lord tonight to suggest that we should extend it to two months, except on an a priori principle as opposed to problems that have been generated. I am perfectly willing to listen but, as far as I am aware, the amendment proposes a solution to a problem that does not exist. That solution, with its extended time period, could become a minor problem in itself. If the noble Lord has evidence from organisations that it is a problem and would like to send me that evidence, I shall of course reflect on it. However, at the moment I have no such evidence and have no reason to believe that this issue presents a difficulty. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that we keep the legislation as it currently is on this point, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: It seemed to me that evidence was unlikely to be readily available--certainly, to me. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a rather simple question in the light of what she has just said. Is it not the case that, if someone misses the one-month deadline, what then ensues before the matter is resolved will take longer than if a slightly longer deadline was in place when the individual could simply go through the initial procedure rather than through the second round?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that that might be true under the existing system. I hope that it will not be true under the future system. Given the simplicity of our arrangements under the future system, even if an application were brand new as opposed to a continuation of one where we had to obtain new information about the ex-partner's circumstances, we would expect to have that information within days and the assessment to be running within four to six weeks. Where one deals with, broadly speaking, continuous information--the same number of children and so on--I would hope to see the new or revisited application triggered even more quickly. Therefore, again, I do not see that it should be the problem that the noble Lord fears.

Lord Higgins: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year.").

Lord Higgins: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The amendments concern two matters. First, Amendment No. 7 proposes that the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year. Secondly, Amendment No. 8 proposes that any change in the nature and qualification of maintenance variations shall be agreed and ratified by Parliament before a change can be implemented.
	I believe that we are all agreed that the simplified formula is likely to be an improvement--at any rate in terms of timing--on the existing formula under the previous legislation. I believe also that it is generally agreed that there are likely to be real problems in operating the old and new formulas side by side in the transitional period. Clearly, those who under the old formula believe that they are being treated more harshly than they would be under the new formula will feel that they have cause for complaint. Be that as it may, there was a general consensus, certainly in the Select Committee in another place, that the move towards the simplified formula is a good thing.
	On the other hand, it is extremely important indeed that there should be adequate variations to deal with particular difficult situations. I believe that in the jargon a variation is described in another form. No doubt the noble Baroness will assist me.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is "departures".

Lord Higgins: I am not entirely sure why we are talking about both "variations" and "departures".

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: "Departures" belong to the existing scheme, "variations" to the new one.

Lord Higgins: I imagine that the reason for the change in terminology remains shrouded in mystery. We seek to argue, as the Family Law Bar Association has argued very strongly, that if the simplified terms are to be used then there is a need for more grounds of departure. They should not be reduced, as has been suggested. They should cover such matters as higher housing costs, travel-to-work costs, disability costs and so on.
	In view of that, there would seem to be a case for the House continuing to be aware of any changes which have been made in the preceding year. As I have suggested, Amendment No. 7 deals with that particular problem.
	Secondly, if such departures or whatever are to be decided upon, those matters should be discussed and agreed in Parliament before they go ahead.
	Overall, our concern is that despite the simplified formula, the system should be sufficiently flexible to deal reasonably with individual circumstances. Therefore, we hope that the Government will be prepared to accept our proposal. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Earlier in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the actual effect on children brought about by this Bill. It is extremely important that Parliament should know how it is working out for children. Therefore, the idea of an annual report seems to be excellent.
	It is all very well to have a system which is justified as likely to be fair and to talk about the matter generally, but it will be important to know the real implications for the children concerned. This is a way for Parliament to discover and discuss that. I suggest that the Government should give some serious thought to this proposal.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Both these amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of variations. Amendment No. 8 will require the Secretary of State to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament for any changes he wishes to make to the nature and qualifying criteria of the grounds on which he will consider a variation from the normal child support maintenance calculations.
	I recognise the noble Lord's concerns to ensure that new variations are not introduced through the back door with the result that the variations scheme simply reintroduces the complexity of the current scheme by another route. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, agrees with the comment made by his honourable friend Edward Leigh in another place when he said that,
	"if they load a new set of variations on to the simplified formula, the system will quickly revert to something approximating the present highly complex system".
	Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that we have thought very carefully about which expenses will merit a variation of liability. We may wish to come to that in due course. To put it very simply, the two grounds of variation that we are proposing are, first, where the costs of supporting the child of the first family, including contact, need to be taken into account in order to ensure that the payment of maintenance does not subvert the father's capacity to make contact with the child. Legitimate expenses will be taken into account.
	The second is where mistaken or fraudulent information has been given and we want variations on those grounds to ensure that, for example, the father is not living a life style inconsistent with the income declared. Those are the two basic grounds for variations. We are determined to keep it tight. We believe parents should put children, not other expenses, first. All the rules of the new scheme are intended to ensure this.
	I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that Section 52 of the Child Support Act, as amended by Clause 24, already provides that no regulations made under Schedule 4B can be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses. The new Schedule 4B--as substituted by Clause 6--details the cases and circumstances where a variation may be allowed. It also provides for regulation-making powers relating to the manner in which, and the extent to which, the normal calculation rules may be varied. That includes regulations relating to grounds which are not specified on the face of the Bill itself. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that that affords ample opportunity for debate of any proposed changes, and should provide all the safeguards as regards accountability which are being sought.
	Amendment No. 7 appears to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of variations, although it may be the nature of them, which he has made in the preceding year. I do not believe that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should do so because the Child Support Agency, through its chief executive, will, as now, compile the relevant information as a matter of routine and publish it in an annual business report. I shall take up the point regarding information about variations and shall try to ensure that that is embedded in any future reports. That will give your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the information which is sought on the basis of which, should he ever wish to, he could raise a Question or introduce a short debate. Therefore, an appropriate vehicle is already in place--namely, the annual report of the Child Support Agency--and it seems unwise to ask the Secretary of State essentially to duplicate that work. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: With regard to the confusion between the number or nature of the variations, that can be covered by asking for both the number and nature of the variations.
	What the noble Baroness said about the annual report of the Child Support Agency largely covers the point which I was seeking to make about that and the question of agreeing variations by statutory instrument.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to have so many variations that we go back to the former complexities. Anyone, like myself, who has suffered from arguing those complexities in the past on behalf of constituents--or sometimes against them--will realise that that is not a route which we want to follow. Indeed, it is not. Nevertheless, we believe that there needs to be a degree of flexibility. As the noble Baroness pointed out, some of those issues arise later in the Bill in specific terms. No doubt we can pursue them at that time. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 39.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 79, 81 to 83, 85, 87 to 91, 104, 106 to 108, 200 and 201. This group of amendments is a technical group necessary to improve the drafting of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves what is intended.
	Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90 are minor amendments in connection with the new civil penalty of disqualification from holding a driving licence. Of course, we shall have a substantive debate on Amendment No. 84 regarding that matter. These amendments are necessary because of changes currently being made to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act. The effect is unchanged.
	When magistrates' courts have made a disqualification order, the non-resident parent will be required to produce his licence. These amendments concern the powers of the police to ask the non-resident parent to produce the licence if it was not given to the courts. Failure to produce the licence in these circumstances is a criminal offence punishable by a fine.
	The new simple system will, for the first time, enable the CSA to devote greater resources to collection and enforcement. We believe that this and the new measures in respect of driving licences together with the ability to deduct maintenance from a wider range of benefits will ensure that regular maintenance payments are secured from the vast majority of non-resident parents.
	The other amendments, including a number that relate to Clause 17 of the Bill about civil imprisonment in Scotland, make technical corrections or additions to parts of the Bill to ensure that it achieves what is intended without unnecessary duplication. As I say, these are technical drafting issues. Later we shall come to the substantive issues. With that explanation I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: The Committee will be grateful for that explanation. If the Committee eventually takes a different view on some of the later matters, like disqualification and confiscation of driving licences, no doubt we shall see another set of amendments like these that will put the matter right. That being so, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining it. I do not want to oppose this further at this stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 40, leave out ("in connection with any other assessment of maintenance").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Substituted Part I of Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act 1991]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 89, line 7, at beginning insert--
	("( ) Where the amount of child support maintenance calculated exceeds such sum as may be prescribed ("the maximum sum"), the maximum sum shall be payable by the non-resident parent.").

Lord Higgins: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. This is an important amendment that seeks to impose what in current jargon would be described as "an upper limit". There is widespread feeling--again I refer to and support the Family Law Bar Association--for the view that there should be a maximum season on liability and that the basis of saying that the contribution from the absent parent should be unlimited is one that gives us considerable cause for concern.
	In effect, it will give the parent with care and, through him or her--although that is not certain--it will give the child the right to share in the income of the non-resident parent without limit. That raises a number of important issues as to what extent it is appropriate to say in a Bill that is designed to protect the rights of the child and that states that the child should be supported, whether the child should have, over and above what may be a reasonable amount for that purpose, an entitlement to the income of the absent parent.
	Earlier the noble Baroness sought to argue that, in sharing the responsibility for a child, the parent with care was, in effect, providing the home, and so on, and that it was up to the absent parent to provide the money. That is debatable, not least because, as we know--we shall come to this point later--the income and wealth of the parent with care may be substantially greater than that of the absent parent. At all events, even if the situation is one where the absent parent is rich, or well off compared with the parent with care, it is arguable that there should be some limit imposed on the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the children of, let us say, a first marriage.
	The matter becomes particularly complicated when someone has had several marriages or may have fathered a succession of children without having been married at all. That may be less likely in the case of someone who is extremely well off than otherwise. None the less, it would seem unreasonable that there should be no limit whatever to the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the parent with care.
	The amendments before us seek to deal with that particular problem in a variety of ways. Amendment No. 11, for example, suggests that there should be a maximum sum for which the non-resident parent is liable and that, following the calculation of the amount paid by a non-resident parent, the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent so that there is some degree of equity between the two.
	I believe that the Select Committee sought to argue as follows:
	"In the final analysis, the child-support formula should be seen clearly to be related to the cost of bringing up children and not as a straightforward 'tax' levied on the non-resident parent. We recommend that the Government should re-examine the possibility of inserting in the legislation an upper limit on the automatic application"--
	I stress the words "the automatic application"--
	"of the revised CSA formula".
	The Select Committee reached that conclusion after taking evidence from a number of witnesses who argued along those lines.
	Similarly, we also have in front of us Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 that suggest that the upper limit of child support maintenance may reasonably be of the order of £400 a week for each qualifying child. I do not believe that anyone would reasonably argue that that limit is too tight. Even in the most exotic circumstances, a limit of £400 a week for each qualifying child would seem relaxed. If there were three children, that would mean £1,200 a week from the absent parent to the parent with care. We put that down as a basis for debate.
	Clearly, we are not concerned with the vast majority of cases in front of us. The number of people who can afford to pay £400 a week for their child, absent or not, is limited, but to have no limit at all would mean that, effectively, it would become a tax on the absent parent. We believe that in these circumstances there is a strong argument that at least some limit--we can debate the quantum--ought to be imposed. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: We, on these Benches, and my honourable friends have discussed at some length, and on a good many occasions, the principles involved in these amendments and in the next group of amendments. We can see a good deal of merit in the arguments on both sides. All of us were extremely reluctant to come to a conclusion until my honourable friend, Professor Webb, finally grasped the nettle and laid down a general principle. Perhaps I may save myself the labour of speaking on the next group of amendments by explaining that the general principle was that in general children ought to share in the increasing wealth of their parents. That means that we decided we would not support this group of amendments.
	Suppose a child of Mr Donald Trump were subject to British law. The sum of £400 a week may seem to him or her to be rather mean considering his or her father's resources and could lead to a certain amount of resentment. On the other hand, we felt that some account should be taken, although not in quite the same way or to the same extent, of increasing wealth of the parent with care. Clearly, the Minister is correct that the care is a direct contribution to the welfare of the child and anything that did not take that into account would be entirely indefensible. On the other hand, a situation can exist in which the parent with care may be a great deal richer than the non-resident parent.
	We have to try to reduce the resentment that arrangements for child support have created. I can see among those who feel resentment, even at the basic principle, that that is one that could easily be fastened on and could lead to a great deal of complaint. Although we shall not support this group of amendments, we shall support the next group, beginning with Amendment No. 12.

Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. In the course of weighing the pros and cons of the arguments, did he consider, if he decides not to support these amendments, whether the principle should be extended to those whose marriage has not broken down and to those who were never married? Does he believe that the law should indicate that a very wealthy parent must give a certain percentage of his income to any given child?

Earl Russell: Subject to the provisions of Amendment No. 15, which we have yet to debate, yes, I think that I would say that.

Baroness Pitkeathley: The noble Earl has reminded us that arguments can be made on both sides as regards caps on maintenance. However, we should remember that when we take into account the philosophy that lies behind the provisions relating to child support in the Bill, we cannot support these amendments. That philosophy is not about need, but rather the rights of a child to support and the responsibilities of parents to give that support, whether they are absent or present.
	Where parents remain together, the child would share proportionately in the income of the household. In my view, and speaking with some experience as a lone parent, it is morally unjust if children do not share proportionately in the income because the parents live apart. We should also remember that we are trying to introduce the simplest possible system to improve what is currently in place. These amendments would add complexity and for that reason would make it less effective.
	Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminded us, this applies to only a very small number of people. The number of lone parent families where this would apply is absolutely tiny. I believe that we should reject the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that this is an extremely important issue. One can imagine a case where the non-resident parent is extremely well-off and is forced to supply to the resident parent large sums of money for the children. I believe that the noble Earl mentioned that those sums would be transferred to the mother of the children. However, the children might not in fact get the money. I do not believe that such arrangements would ever be made in any other circumstances.
	In any case, it is not good for children to be given large sums of money when they are young. That could happen unless an amendment of this kind is introduced. The Bill as it stands is contrary to good sense. Indeed it may well be that the children never see the money because the funds would simply be transferred from one parent to another. That will occur not even as a result of unintended consequences, but will be the result of not sufficiently thinking the matter through.
	I believe that we would be making a great mistake and I hope that the Committee will support these amendments.

Lord Haskel: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of sharing in the increasing wealth of families. Unfortunately, in real life family incomes can go down as well as up. In view of the fact that in most families the household wealth will fluctuate over the period that a child is dependent on the family, the introduction of a cap would present an added complication. In order to take account of the fact that the wealth of a family can rise and fall, a cap would be a disadvantage. It would be better to keep the system as simple as possible and to stick to the arrangements that are agreed.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may add my support to the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lady Carnegy. As I understand it, we are discussing support for the child and ensuring that adequate provision is made in all cases. That was my interpretation, not that the Bill aims to give a child a lump sum of whatever size simply because that child has a parent who happens to be wealthy.
	I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify what we are considering here. Are we discussing a sufficient sum of money to enable the child to be brought up in a loving environment--I refer to the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne? If it is possible to demand unlimited levels of support from the parent, all that will do is introduce more controversy and bitterness to the relationship. It must be noted that a cap of £400 a week per child is a very high limit.
	I believe that we are moving away from the basic intention of the Bill which, as I understand it, is to ensure that adequate support is given to a child. I did not think that we were aiming to secure investment for the future for certain children. Can the noble Baroness make clear to the Committee the intention here?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe that we may have forgotten exactly what was the intention that lay behind the introduction of the original Child Support Act. The original legislation was designed to make parents on social security pay towards the maintenance of their children in order that the Treasury could save around £400 million a year. That was what it was all about and I believe that we should bear that very much in mind. The legislation was not introduced in order to distribute largesse from one family to another and thus give some children a lifestyle that perhaps they should not enjoy at a particularly young age.
	Furthermore, we should bear in mind that circumstances can change. For example, there may be a separation in a family. A man or a woman remarries and, whereas previously the partner might have been poor or perhaps living on an average wage, through the newly formed couple's diligence and desire to get on, they build up a large business. They then become relatively rich. A part of that success will have been contributed by the new spouse. Why should she contribute towards the upkeep of children who are not hers? I do not believe that circumstances of that kind have been considered. I think that it would be entirely wrong to expect a new spouse to contribute. Because the business would belong jointly to her, that is what she would be doing.
	I believe that my noble friend should take heed of what has been said and, if not today then at some stage, consider the force of these amendments. She should give some consideration to what has been said and then bring forward a formula that would set a reasonable limit on contributions that might have to be made--usually, of course, by men.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposal has given rise to an interesting debate. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce an upper limit to the amount of maintenance that a non-resident parent is required to pay. This would reverse the Government's present intention that there should be no upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 seek to restrict the amount payable in respect of any one child to £400 a week, which under our proposals equates to an annual gross income of roughly £200,000 where there is one qualifying child. Amendment No. 11 provides that the level of the limit, or "maximum sum" is to be prescribed in regulations, although the wording is not entirely clear and we would need to discuss further the details.
	I suggest that having an upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable would result in an inconsistency of treatment between non-resident parents with relatively high levels of income and those on more modest sums. Our decision not to introduce a cap was not one that was reached lightly. We have considered the issues very carefully and we accept that there are strong and respectable arguments on both sides. I accept that the matter is quite finely balanced.
	As noble Lords have commented, there is a concern that if maintenance is set as a proportion of net income, levels of maintenance where income is very high bear no relation to the needs of the child. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has tonight argued that in those circumstances maintenance payments effectively become spousal maintenance payments. The counter-argument, which was put persuasively by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, is that the children of intact families share in the standard of living of their parents without any limit. Why should the amount that a father spends on his children be less because he is not living with them? It is important to remember that child support rates are not based on a calculation of the child's need for maintenance.
	Of a current case load of about 1 million non-resident parents, only 500 have incomes exceeding £50,000 a year and only 120 have net incomes exceeding £150,000. The noble Lord will recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about having to scrutinise all incomes to protect or cap 120 non-resident parents.
	Under the new system, there will be no maintenance requirement but simply a straightforward percentage slice of income that all parents can understand. Maintenance for all children will be based on what a father can afford--not what he or anyone else believes the children need. All non-resident parents will keep a minimum of 75 per cent of their net income in the new liability calculation. If just one child qualifies for maintenance support in the first family, 15 per cent of the net income of a higher rate taxpayer equates to between 9 per cent and 10 per cent only of his gross income. The rest remains with the tax authorities, national insurance and himself. After divorce, the average non-resident parent is 15 per cent better off whereas the parent with care and the children are on average 15 per cent worse off.
	I acknowledge that the arguments are finely balanced. Our decision takes account of the various views expressed in the consultation exercise on the Green Paper and in talking to interested groups and individuals. The Social Security Select Committee in another place, after carefully considering many of the points raised today, reached the same conclusion. Placing an upper limit on the amount paid in respect of any one child is inconsistent with the Government's plan for a simple and transparent system of rates that protects the rights of all children to support from non-resident parents, in keeping with their ability to provide. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.

Lord Higgins: This has been a fascinating debate, not least because, in reply to my intervention, we seem to have heard new Liberal Democrat party policy that government should legislate how much should be allocated by parents to their children in any family that has not broken up. If that is the case, we may be in serious trouble.

Earl Russell: The noble Lord asked me for a moral principle, not a prescription. I will qualify my remarks. I would hesitate to apply that principle to Augustus the Strong, who had 592 known children.

Lord Higgins: I always thought that the noble Earl thought that moral principles and what ought to be in legislation were one and the same. We shall, no doubt, pursue that point on another occasion.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the Minister said that the income of every non-resident parent would have to be scrutinised to identify those who were to be capped. If we were to insert this simple provision into the Bill, anyone who thought they ought to be capped would say so in response to the agency's inquiries. It is unlikely that the vast majority would need to have their means assessed in that way or would think they were caught by the cap.
	The Minister referred to spousal income rather than assistance for the child. On the kind of numbers the noble Baroness was talking about, it is doubtful that the needs would be of such a high order. The amount will be based on what the other parent can afford. We have to take into account the position of second families. In the case of someone who is extremely wealthy and has a second family, paying support without limit on the percentage basis might reduce the income he can devote to the children of the second family. One thing that is indelibly printed on my mind from dealing with such cases is the bitterness of second families, which gives rise to many problems and a determination on the part of absent parents who have remarried to avoid by any means becoming involved with the CSA. On this basis, there could be a redistribution of income from the second family to the first family. There would be a variation on the old purse-to-wallet argument, as to who ought to have the money.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out that it was not the intention of the 1991 Act--or this Bill, I thought--to lead to massive transfers from one group to another. One could have an extremely rich mother with care combined with an extremely rich absent parent--but the absent father would still have to transfer support, without limit on a percentage basis, to his very rich previous wife. We will need to return to these complicated matters on Report, then reach a view on the balance of argument. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 89, line 7, at beginning insert--
	("(A1) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent, the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.
	(A2) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.
	(A3) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of sub-paragraph (A1) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by sub-paragraph (A2) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.").

Lord Higgins: With this, we may appropriately consider also Amendment No. 26. The argument is simply that the income of the parent with care and the absent parent should both be taken into account. The Government seem determined only to take into account the income of the absent parent. That was made clear earlier by the Minister when she said that the contribution by the with-care parent was care and that of the absent parent was money. We have grave doubts, believing it important to take both aspects into account.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not mean to imply that the father's sole responsibility is that of providing cash support. I would certainly wish to see contact and loving support. But when it comes to determining proper apportionment, all the research indicates that children of an intact family take 30 per cent of its income--not just in terms of food and trainers but housing costs and the like. Therefore, it seems equitable to allocate 15 per cent to the parent with whom the child is living and 15 per cent to the non-resident parent. I was not trying to suggest that the absent parent is only there for the money and the caring parent is there to do everything else.

Lord Higgins: In the light of the debate we had earlier on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, it is clearly desirable--not least in light of the statistics the noble Baroness advanced earlier--that the absent parent, man or woman, should continue to take part in the emotional and other development of the children concerned. That is something on which we should all agree. Where there is room for dispute is whether, on the other side of that coin, the fact that the parent with care takes most of the responsibility--in many cases not all the responsibility--means that he or she should be in some way exempt from paying anything at all. That is a debatable proposition, particularly where, after the marriage has broken down or if there was no marriage at all, the parent with care is better off than the absent parent, whether it be male or female. That gives rise to great tensions and seems to us, in a simple-minded way, to be unfair.
	The parent with care ought to contribute, if she is able, towards the cost of the child's rearing in terms of finance. The noble Baroness's position is that, however well off the parent with care is, she should not contribute anything financially. Is that right?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must challenge the noble Lord. I made it clear that the parent with care contributes her share of the maintenance by providing the lifestyle which the child enjoys by living with her.

Lord Higgins: But she does not contribute anything at all in relation to finance. Am I wrong?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The child is fed; has its clothes bought; the housing and heating costs paid; school costs, trainers and gym kit paid for. Is that not part of the parent-with-care's contribution in kind?

Lord Higgins: We fully accept that the parent with care, male or female, contributes in that way. But it is not reasonable to say that that exempts them from making a financial contribution.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a financial contribution.

Lord Higgins: I suppose if one wished to do so, one could evaluate it in a cost sense. But if one does that, then the noble Baroness is hoist with her own petard. She has to argue that that value is the same as the value of the amount which is being contributed by the absent parent. The noble Baroness is not doing that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to get under the noble Lord's feet. I am baffled by this. A child needs support. We know from all the research and experience abroad that in most families that takes around 30 per cent of their income; not in a narrow sense but in the broadest sense of living costs. That is how much is apportioned.
	The argument is simple. If the child needs that sum of money, it is reasonable to assume that that should be split 50-50 between the two parents. Clearly, because the child is living with the carer--normally the mother, but not invariably so--the mother is providing that 15 per cent not in cash, but in kind. She has to purchase that kind through cash, including housing costs, food on the table, heating, TV licence and so forth. That is her contribution. The absent parent's contribution towards those living costs, because he is not providing care in kind because it is not an intact family, is the cash. If they were together, he would be providing it in cash because he would possibly be bringing in the earnings and the mother might be producing it in kind. That is being replicated in these arrangements.
	I am baffled that the noble Lord is not willing to put a financial equivalence on the contribution made by the parent with care to the cash sum produced by the non-resident parent.

Lord Higgins: I am happy to do that. But it still seems to me that one ought to take into account the resources of both parties in the broadest sense of the term. As I understand it, that is not what will happen under the Bill as drafted; the wealth of the parent with care is not to be taken into account in determining how the matter should be adjusted. There is a strong argument for saying that that is not the right approach, not least because it will tend to create tensions; it will not lead to a satisfactory arrangement.
	In this context, our amendment imposes a limit in that regard. In another place the Australian experience was called in aid. A senior Australian lawyer gave evidence to the Select Committee to the effect that some sort of adjustment ought to be made on the lines that we are suggesting. Perhaps I ought to give the noble Baroness the chance to have a run at this, so to speak, rather than by way of intervention and we can then take the matter forward.

Baroness Gale: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that this was a simple amendment taking the incomes of both parents into account. But we would argue that the parent with the care of the child gives much more in kind and will make a greater contribution to the rearing of the child. That contribution cannot be calculated on a balance sheet. The amendment seems to argue that it is the incomes of the parents that are important, rather than the needs of the child. But the needs and rights of the child must be paramount and that is what we should be considering.
	The Government's clear policy is to lift children out of poverty. So how can anyone seriously propose that if in some instances--a small percentage--the parent taking responsibility of the day-to-day care happens to have a higher income than the non-resident parent, the child should be penalised. The non-resident parent should continue to make a financial contribution to the agreed amount, which is 15 per cent in terms of the first child, irrespective of what the resident parent's income is. In that way, the child will share in the wealth of both parents, as the child would if the parents had stayed together.
	The key issue here is children's rights. The children should be allowed to share in the wealth of both parents and not have their income diminished because the resident parent's income increases. Amendment No. 12 will allow the non-resident parent to pay less than the agreed 15 per cent for the first child. That would, in effect, let the non-resident parent off the hook. For example, if the mother (in most cases it would be the mother who would have care and responsibility) worked hard to improve her position and because of that her income rose, then the non-resident parent could have his contribution diminished. That cannot be right. We believe Amendment No. 12 should be rejected and I support the Government's proposals.

Baroness Byford: I rise to make a short intervention on this amendment. I am somewhat concerned that, if we are not careful, we may be looking at the past when, in this day and age, we should be looking to the future. Many women are managing to hold good jobs--I accept not all and it is the same for men; people's incomes vary enormously. I support my noble friend's suggestion that both incomes should be taken into consideration. I cannot see why the Government feel that they should not.
	I listened with care to what the Minister said about the mother--the resident carer is predominantly the mother--giving time and I accept that it is difficult to evaluate time, whether it is a man or a woman. However, that mother may be earning £40,000. Some women are now earning a lot more than that. If the father of that child earns much less money and goes on to re-marry, it would be unfair not to take the earnings of the caring wife into consideration. I should therefore like to press the Minister further on that point.
	In many ways, I think the Bill has grown from past experience, when some women were not working. However, in this day and age there are great opportunities for women to earn, and many are taking up that challenge, and that point has a bearing on the amendments.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this is not an issue of men versus women but about a child's right to support.
	I should like to link financial support, emotional support and maintaining contact with children.
	We all agree that emotional development is the most important matter. Research has repeatedly shown that absent parents who contribute, whether they are mothers or fathers, are much more likely to keep in touch. The money is almost a symbol of commitment to the child and of their willingness to take, and continue to take, responsibility as a parent, whether or not they are living with the other partner.
	The fact that the parent with care is well off does not absolve the other parent of this responsibility. Moreover, it will certainly contribute towards maintaining emotional support, which is very important for the psychological wellbeing of the child.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would the noble Baroness agree that the emotional support of the non-resident parent will be lost if the whole thing appears to be grossly unfair? I can think of nothing that would alienate the non-resident parent and his or her new family more than if the situation is manifestly unfair.
	The Family Law Bar Association thought that the lack of a cap was crude social engineering. I think this is an inadvertent giving-in to feminism, thinking that it will be the woman who will perhaps be better off. It may not necessarily be the case, but it is likely to be. One must be sure that the emotional support of the child comes from both sides. That support will be lost if this is maintained.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I clearly emphasised that the situation applies to either parent and that this is not a women's issue. Emotional support and continued contact are the important factors.

Baroness Crawley: I should like to reiterate some of the points made by the Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The contribution of both parents is taken into account in the Bill. None of us is saying that the parent with care--and it is nearly always her--does not make a financial contribution as well as a contribution in kind. The Bill is fair: the contribution of the absent parent is the maintenance contribution. The parent with care makes a contribution in kind by giving time and presence, and by fulfilling organisational responsibilities. They may also make a financial contribution. We are talking about a fairness of approach.
	However, I challenge the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I deal daily with figures on women's and men's income, and, although I would like to think that in the future the situation will greatly improve, most of the women about whom we are talking, who are the parents with care, will on average be 20 per cent poorer than the parent who does not have the care. Therefore, even though in the future we hope that men and women's pay will become much more equal, we are talking about a lot of poorer women today whose incomes, in their lifetimes, will never go into double figures.

Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is clearly right about the present balance of income. However, in this and the last group of amendments we appear to be following the principle of Parkinson's law on the bicycle shed: spending an hour and a half debating the bicycle shed and 10 minutes on the nuclear reactor. Both amendments deal with a small number of people. Nevertheless, for the sake of public acceptance, we might as well try and get it right. Legislation since 1991 has conspicuously lacked public acceptance.
	I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and on this occasion I agree with her about the importance of the implied emotional commitment in the principle of financial support; but she was attacking what the amendment does not say. The amendment does not say that in these cases the non-resident parent shall give no support; it says that that support shall be reduced in such manner as may be prescribed. It does not state that the principle of support should disappear, and that is quite right because it satisfies the point. It merely states that it should be taken into account.
	Nobody, as far as I can hear, in any quarter of the Chamber, is disputing the principle that care, with its financial, emotional and work implications, must be taken into account. However, as I understand it, the amendment concedes this principle already and it is not an issue. The extent to which it should be taken into account and in what way is a difficult question. I understand very well why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has chosen to leave that matter to regulation.
	The point remains that if no account is taken of the principle of the amendment, we will have a great deal of trouble with public acceptance of the Act.
	Let us imagine two cases that are by no means unimaginable. One is of a highly successful woman barrister, a parent with care, who has kept the children. The husband is unemployed or temporarily employed in a series of part-time jobs, with very little money indeed; and she is earning £200,000 a year, as successful barristers occasionally do. In this situation there will be a certain amount of public feeling. Imagine the heiress of a millionaire who has had an impromptu affair with a bricklayer--such things have happened and will continue to happen. She keeps the child and then the CSA duns the bricklayer for 15 per cent of his income.
	That is only one case, but stop and think for a moment about what the Sun will be capable of doing with that case. The Minister knows that I am perfectly capable of snapping my fingers at the Sun--I do it daily. However, I do not think it is particularly wise to make the Sun or the Mail, or their ilk, a gratuitous present of a free issue on which they can go to town as much as they like.
	I ask the Minister, for the sake of acceptance of the legislation: please come in out of the rain.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I add my voice to that appeal. I do so because, together with the noble Earl and other noble Lords, including the late Lord Houghton, we spent day after day, night after night, into the early hours of the morning, trying to convince the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the Child Support Act, of which he was the prime mover, would cause enormous difficulties and would alienate people not only from the Act but from the Government. I described it as "another poll tax bit of legislation", and so it has proved. It has not been accepted by either men or women. It has hurt both. Indeed, it has provided little good for both. It was supposed to help women, but it has not helped them at all: it has helped the Treasury. In fact, it has not helped the Treasury because its expenses were at least six-times as much as estimated during the course of the Bill.
	We have been through all this before. I do not want my noble friend to do what was done previously and not listen to the words of wisdom that are coming from the Front Benches and, indeed, from some on the Back Benches. I generally support the Bill. It will make a good deal of improvement on what we had previously. Nevertheless, I do not want the Bill to fail on the basis of public perception and because of a failure of public acceptance, as mentioned by the noble Earl.
	There are many parts of the Bill about which we should be worried. For example, we all accept that those who have care of children--mainly women--have a most important job to do and one that is worth a lot of money. But as has already been pointed out, if at the same time the woman is able not only to employ people to carry out those duties but also has a lot of money, surely she should contribute monetarily towards the upkeep of the child, as in the case with wives who go out to work.
	We are talking about the rights of children. Of course children have the right to maintenance, to a good life and to a good standard of living. But that is where the rights stop. I hope that we are not presuming to tell people who remain in a marriage or in a partnership relationship that they should be contributing a given percentage of their money to their children. That is something that I would not accept. Up to the age of about 60, I happen to believe that I am far better at looking after the money that they will inherit than they are.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had not expected my noble friend to finish his contribution by talking about inheritance. However, these amendments seek to change the way that maintenance liability of a non-resident parent is calculated to take account of the income of the parent with care in certain prescribed circumstances.
	Amendment No. 12 provides for a reduction in the amount of maintenance payable where the parent with care's net income exceeds that of the non-resident parent. The manner of the reduction is not prescribed but is to be provided in regulations. It is not entirely clear whether the reduction is a pound-for-pound calculation or whether the maintenance would be reduced by a lesser amount. However, Amendment No. 26 leads me to think that the latter may be the case.
	Amendment No. 26 provides for the net weekly income of the non-resident parent (upon which child support liability is based) to be reduced by a penny for each pound by which the gross annual income from all sources of a parent with care exceeds £25,000, subject to there being a limit that would prevent the non-resident parent's net income being reduced by more than 50 per cent. This would lead to a consequential reduction in the amount of maintenance payable in affected cases. Additionally, this amendment also provides for the calculation of a non-resident parent's net income to include income from both earned and unearned sources.
	Perhaps I may leave that last point aside for a moment and return to first principles. I find myself unable to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, cannot, apparently, understand the Government's position. At the end of the day, the essential issue is not whether the man or the women can better afford to pay maintenance--in other words, setting one off against the other--it is, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and others, so rightly said, that the child has the right to maintenance from his or her father, irrespective of the income of the mother, exactly as if they were part of an intact family. I believe that that 15 per cent or 20 per cent contribution from him, according to the number of children, is a right that the child has independent of the income of the parent with care.
	Members of the Committee may ask why that is so. In response, I should like to suggest four basic reasons--

Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify something before she leaves that specific point. She argued that the balance would still be this way if the marriage had not broken up and if we were talking about an "intact family". But if it were an intact family and the wife earned much more than the husband, surely she would contribute more.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. She would contribute more because the whole family would enjoy a higher standard of living in which the child would participate. Perhaps I may have another go at trying to see whether I can get the noble Lord to understand our position.
	I should like to suggest four reasons why this is a matter concerning the child's rights. The first is grounds of equity. I have already said that research has estimated that around 30 per cent of a family's income is spent on the children and on extra costs; for example, housing, clothes, and so on. The woman contributes her 15 per cent because she maintains the child, while the man contributes his 15 per cent by paying cash maintenance because, after all, the child is not living with him.
	Where the woman has a higher income the child enjoys a higher standard of living. That care may be in the form of cash, it may be her time or it may be in the form of opportunity costs. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples. Let us say that the woman is on £7,500 a year (£150 a week) and the man is on £10,000. He will contribute £30 a week to the child's support, while she and the child will be on £7,500. They will probably be living in modest, rented accommodation and will have to watch carefully what is spent on food. They will probably have to economise on things like fresh fruit, and so on, and will have to search for the least expensive clothes that can be found. Indeed, they will probably have to think twice as to whether they can afford a holiday, other than one which means staying with friends.
	I hope that that is not too much of a caricature of how a lone parent on £150 a week might be living, together with, say, the £30 coming in from the non-resident parent. However, let us assume instead that the man earns £10,000 and the woman earns £20,000 a year. What then would the child enjoy? It is possible that the child would be living in an owner-occupied house with more space and a garden, situated in an area that is more attractive to the child in terms of parks, and so on. The extra money would also be spent on heating, lighting, repairs and probably a higher standard of food with more fresh fruit, vegetables and probably--I do not know--organic food. The child would be able to enjoy school trips that the parent on £150 a week would find very difficult to afford. The child would also have the benefit of more expensive clothes; for example, more expensive trainers. He or she would almost certainly enjoy a holiday, possibly abroad. There would also be better transport and a computer.
	Those advantages would not come from the man's £30 contribution per week; it would come about because the woman was earning £20,000 a year. As a result, the child would be able to enjoy all of those benefits by virtue of the woman's increased income. She would be paying their joint bills and he would be making a constant contribution related to his ability to pay. The difference in the standard of income between the child whose parent is on £150 a week (£7,500 a year) and the child whose parent receives £400 is huge. It arises because the woman is able to offer a higher standard of living than the child would otherwise enjoy. That is her cash contribution towards paying the bills--the mortgage, the school trips, the holiday and the clothes--and it goes over and beyond her time as carer and her opportunity costs. Indeed, without the child, she might be able to earn even more.
	I do not understand why noble Lords opposite do not accept the fact that the difference between the standard of living that the child will enjoy where the woman earns £7,500 and the father earns £10,000 and where the mother earns £20,000 and the father earns £10,000 is expended in part and proportionately on the child. This means that the child is supported in a more attractive and certainly more comfortable lifestyle than would otherwise be the case. That is the first point: the child enjoys the standard of living provided by the parent with care. Therefore, because the mother is paying in kind, so to speak, as well as in cash, the child has a right to expect that the father's contribution should not be reduced accordingly.
	Secondly, I turn to the grounds of simplicity. At present, if the man has a second family--whether he has one, two or three children in that second family, and whether or not they are his biological children with the new partner or the step-children whom the new partner brought into the relationship--the children in that family are treated in the same way. They are offset against his income before we apportion the 15 per cent for the first family.
	If her income--that is, the parent with care--is to be taken into account, I suggest that the income of his new partner should be taken into account in assessing what she can contribute to the stepchildren, as well as to the biological children, in the second family. If her income as well as the man's is to be taken into account for the first family, one must do that for the second family. However, some of those children will not be their joint children; they will be stepchildren. In that case we should consider the income of his partner's ex-partner in contributing to the stepchildren. While we are considering four people's incomes, we might just as well throw in that of the fifth, which is, of course, the parent with care's new partner's capacity to pay for the new standard of living that may be required, for example, the extra house and so on.
	What have we done? We have moved from considering one assessment--the man's--to two assessments--the parents with care--to three assessments--the man's new partner's--to four assessments--the man's new partner's ex-partner--and possibly a fifth assessment--that of the new partner of the parent with care. That comprises five income calculations instead of one. By withholding one piece of information five people could delay the maintenance assessment. Does the Committee in all honesty believe that assessing five people's incomes on a worst case scenario would result in the children receiving more maintenance?
	My third point is that on the ground of common sense, that is not worth it. Parents with care generally are poor. Some 96 per cent of parents with care have incomes of under £100 a week. Only 7,000 have incomes of over £10,000 a year. Only 200 in the entire caseload of 1.2 million have incomes of over £25,000 a year. Therefore potentially we could assess five people's incomes in each of the 600,000 or so private cases to calculate the woman's contribution in 200 cases, even though the child already enjoys the higher standard of living that she is providing. The amount that would result from that elaborate la ronde arrangement of maintenance would be small.
	For example, a non-resident parent with net earnings of £250 a week and one child pays £38 a week. If the parent with care was one of the 200 I have mentioned--that figure is probably by now 100--with earnings of £28,000 a year, under the penny in the pound formula his maintenance would be reduced from £38 to £33 a week. We would have to consider 600,000 cases and five people's incomes to pick up 200 cases to save him paying a fiver a week. Is that sensible?
	Fourthly, apart from the delays in making the assessment, it is also costly. The cost of the IT system--about £10 million a year--would be several times more than the total sum collected. Given that the man's share is net, we would have to do elaborate calculations about whether the woman's was net or gross. I hope that in the light of arguments about equity, simplicity, the standard of living of parents with care who are poor, and the costs and delays, the noble Lord opposite will recognise that this is simply not an amendment that is worth pursuing. I hope that he will concede that point not just on grounds of principle--although there is a principle here about which I feel strongly--but on the ground that such an amendment would produce expensive and complicated outcomes which, because of the delays I have mentioned, would thwart the payment of maintenance to children.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness has produced a wonderful argument and she has all the details worked out. However, she completely neglects the fact that unearned income is not taken into account. That could alter the argument. She clearly has not listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who pointed out--I thought this important and I imagine that the noble Baronesses seated behind the noble Baroness saw the point--that one case could completely wreck the whole system in the public's view because of the sheer unfairness of it. I hope that the noble Earl will elaborate on that point.

Earl Russell: I understand where the Minister is coming from. She is coming from a formula-based sense of justice. But to my mind she has illustrated more clearly than I could ever have done myself why a formula-based attempt at justice must always be unjust because it cannot take account of circumstances. The Minister has repeated again her arguments about complexity. If you set out to avoid complexity, you set out to avoid the real world. Many people have tried to do that, no one as far as I know has yet succeeded. All the arguments about complexity that the Minister developed are arguments that bite only on those who believe in doing justice according to a formula. We on these Benches are not among that number. We therefore find the basis of those arguments has no purchase on us.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may respond. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right to say that we are not taking the woman's unearned income into account; we are not taking the man's into account either. There is entire equity there. The unearned income is taken into account only if it is so substantial that it represents some kind of diversion; in other words, he declares an income of, say, £100 a week but has a lifestyle that requires an income of £500 or £1,000 a week. That would create the basis for a variation. However, as I said, there is equity between both parties.
	I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked us to tailor our policies to the prejudices or knee-jerk reactions of the tabloid press. He would be the first to ask us not to do this in the case of asylum seekers.

Earl Russell: I made clear that I asked the noble Baroness to do this only in the rare circumstance in which their case happens to be just.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot conceive of any circumstances where the parent with care has income where it is just to take that into account given the arguments I have set out. If one does that, one is effectively asking the parent with care to pay twice over, not only in terms of the cash payment of bills incurred as part of the care of the child but also in terms of a maintenance contribution because the other party's maintenance that is received is reduced accordingly. The noble Earl asks the parent with care to pay twice over. I am slightly shocked at the suggestion that we should tailor the provision in case one or two cases are picked up by the Sun. Perhaps the noble Earl did not hear me say that. I am slightly shocked that the Liberal Party of all parties should say that we should be wary of cases coming to the notice of the Sun which might be inconvenient to us and therefore we should treat parents with care unfairly on that ground.

Earl Russell: I must ask the Minister to withdraw the word "unfairly". We did not think that what we proposed was unfair and would not have proposed it if we had.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that it is unfair and that is why I said it.

Earl Russell: We do not.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course I would not expect the noble Earl to propose something that he believed to be unfair. However, the fact that he has a belief does not mean to say that the belief is correct. On this occasion I suggest to him that it is not. The provision we propose is fair and decent. The parent with care is providing in kind. That also means paying out cash. The absent parent is providing in cash because he is not providing in kind, in exactly the same way as if they were an intact family.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the formula was unjust. The alternative is to return to an essentially court-based system which I believe many Members on all sides of the Chamber consider to have failed children in the past and, if it were to be reinvented at huge cost and with huge complexity, would fail children again. It would be discretionary and a lottery. It might suit the instincts of angry fathers who want their day in court. However, I am concerned--as, I hope, is the Committee--with the well-being of the child which is not best met by an adversarial situation in which the father seeks to reduce his maintenance. What message does the child get from that except that his or her father does not want to support him to the extent that the agency thinks he should be supported?
	We believe that the proposals are simple. Booklets and tables will be available at post offices, surgeries, libraries and other such places explaining net income and the number of children. The man will know what he has to pay. He will pay his taxes, his national insurance and his child support. The woman, in turn, will know what she can expect to receive from the man, whether she is on benefit or in work, from rough and ready assumptions about his income. The woman will offer the child the standard of living that she is capable of, both in cash and in kind. We think that that is fair and reasonable. Any proposal that the parent with care should pay cash in addition seems to me a double whammy and deeply unfair to lone parents.

Lord Higgins: Let me first pick up the point made by the noble Baroness a moment ago. As she well knows, we are entirely of the view she expressed; namely, that it would be a mistake to go back to the courts and to get rid of the Child Support Agency. We believe that the right approach is to do our best--it is not easy--to improve the Child Support Agency.
	While this debate is unlikely to hit the headlines tomorrow, I presume to say that it shows very clearly the ability of your Lordships' House to debate this kind of very complicated issue in a remarkably sophisticated way. It has been enhanced by the virtuoso performance of the Minister. Having said that, she has totally failed to convince me.
	Perhaps I may make one or two simple points to start with. First, in the light of the debate that we had on the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we are all agreed--it is absolutely common ground--that so far as concerns emotional support and contact with the children, the support of both parents is a matter of great importance. There is no dispute whatever in regard to that.
	Let me make another point which has not been raised so far but which is rather implicit in what has been said; namely, that somehow the absent parent wants to be the absent parent. In many cases that is not so. As I well know from my constituency experience, it may be that the marriage broke up in a way which deeply distressed the absent parent. Again, I think that is common ground.
	I do not think it is true that a small number of people are affected. There may be a considerable number of situations in which the wife has a higher income and greater wealth--if indeed it is the wife rather than the husband--than the absent parent. There may be a considerable number of such cases.
	As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that we are seeing greater equality of incomes between men and women, that is certainly the trend. I welcome it. However, it is wholly irrelevant to the amendment we are discussing where we will be looking at what is the income in an individual case. That is what the amendment is about. So I still think it is an important issue.
	It is not a case of whether the tabloid press pick up a particular point or not, but a case of whether or not taking into account the income of the parent in care increases the amount of bitterness in the relationship, perhaps with regard to the degree of personal contact and so on between the two parents.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord may be going on to deal with this matter in which case I apologise. What is the noble Lord's response to the point I put to him that under the present scheme--for both simplicity and reasons of basic decency--we are not making any distinction between the biological children and the stepchildren in a second family? Does he accept my argument that if there are stepchildren in the second family--and very often if he joins a new partner he may be joining somebody with a child already, who may herself have been a lone parent in the past--then, as a result of the noble Lord's proposals, in all equity we would have to assess her income in regard to her ability to contribute both to their joint children, to her existing stepchildren and, by definition, possibly also to those of her ex-partner? Does he accept that basic argument? Or is it the cascading domino effect; that, once one goes beyond the system we have got, we cannot stop short until all incomes have been taken into account for all responsibilities, for all children, in all relationships?

Lord Higgins: I was coming to precisely that point. It relates again to the point I was making about bitterness. From my own experience--after all, if I may presume to say so, I have seen this at the front end--it will be difficult to take into account the extent to which there is bitterness between the stepchildren of a second marriage and all the ramifications that the noble Baroness spelt out. None the less, on the narrower issue, one still needs to take into account the income of both parties in this particular dispute.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So, under the noble Lord's formula, where the parent with care had an income of under £25,000, we would treat stepchildren and biological children in the second family in the same way; but if the income was £26,000, we would treat them differently?

Lord Higgins: I should like notice of that question. No doubt we can return to it on Report. The noble Baroness has rightly raised the ramifications of the whole issue. But one should not suppose that because one does not deal with all the ramifications in the Bill, they are not real issues on the ground. The views of the stepchildren and so on are extremely vivid, if I may put it that way.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a precise question. Does the noble Lord accept that the implication of the amendment is that the income of the new partner of the former husband--if I may genderise the issue--would now have to be taken into account if there were children in the second family?

Lord Higgins: As I said, I should like to consider that point. I am saying that, from my personal experience, it is certainly a relevant consideration. Of course, the argument the other way concerns the complications that the noble Baroness is constantly arguing against. I do not think that because of the second and third order effects, one should not take into account the first order effect. That is what this amendment is about.
	I turn now to what is perhaps the most difficult point to put in politically correct terms. It concerns the point referred to by the noble Baroness who raised the question of the contribution made by the parent with care. I certainly think that one can take that into account. We are not saying that the contributions she makes--whether in kind or in money--should not be taken into account. On the contrary, we think that is so. Amendment No. 26 seeks to deal with that particular point. It states, in particular, that however great her income may be, the contribution of the absent parent should not fall below 50 per cent of what is the formula. We are seeking to adjust that. I gather that a similar system is operated in Australia.
	My final point before I sit down--I have spoken far too long--concerns the issue of earned and unearned income. I take the Minister's point that we are not proposing at the moment to take into account the unearned income of either the parent with care or the absent parent. Of course, there has always been a long-running debate about whether one should call it "unearned" income. I prefer to use the expression "investment" income. I presume that in the context of this amendment we are talking about investment income.
	The noble Baroness raised the possibility that perhaps what is not being taken into account is not investment income but income that is unearned and not announced by one of the partners to the agreement. However, there is a strong argument for either accepting the amendment and taking into account both kinds of investment income; or, even if one did not accept the amendment, taking into account the investment income of the absent parent. I do not understand why that is not happening at the moment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Statistics show that it is not worth it. The only situation in which people are required to come to the CSA is where she is on benefit and, for the most part, he may be on benefit or he may be in work. Other cases are private cases, and those involved in them can make whatever arrangements they wish. Essentially, they would only come to the CSA as a fall-back if there was a dispute. Therefore, if she is on benefit, by definition she cannot have income of more than £3,000, otherwise it would bite into her benefit.
	Equally, if she is on benefit and one looks at her income, it would be a very rare situation indeed where she would be partnered by someone who had such a vast income that--given the variation thresholds--his investment income would make a significant difference to the amount to be assessed. If he did have such investment income, one would expect in any such break-up that some of it would have gone over to her as part of the settlement, at which point of course she would no longer be getting benefit anyway and would not be a CSA client.

Lord Higgins: I was rather making the point that one should take into account the investment income of the absent parent, if indeed he has some. I do not understand why that is not so. But that is a relatively narrow point.
	We have had a fascinating debate. I am interested in all the views expressed--not least those from the Liberal Democrat Benches. No doubt we shall return to the matter when we come to consider it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strabolgi: Before calling Amendment No. 13, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Strabolgi: I should inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 89, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert--
	("(2) Where the non-resident parent also has one or more relevant other children--
	(a) the total number of children cared for shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (b);
	(b) the number referred to in paragraph (a) shall be calculated by adding together the number of qualifying children and the number of relevant other children;
	(c) there shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (d) a sum for deemed child care liabilities;
	(d) the amount referred to in paragraph (c) shall be calculated by application of the rates in sub-paragraph (1) to the total number of children cared for;
	(e) the basic rate shall be deemed child care liability divided by the number of qualifying children.").

Lord Higgins: Amendment No. 15 is concerned with the total number of children involved in any case. In the foreword to the Green Paper the Prime Minister stated that the system must support families and children. He went on to say that it should be fair to children who will get maintenance they had the right to expect, providing not just financial benefit but tangible proof that they are cared for. We can certainly go along with that proposal. However, in their White Paper the Government said that they would go ahead without discriminating against various categories. That is not what the Government are proposing.
	In the Green Paper and in the White Paper two alternatives were offered. Page 10 of the White Paper states that either one would deduct a proportion of the non-resident parent's net income for each of their children in a second family and apply the second rates to the balance or, alternatively, would calculate child support for all the non-resident parent's children in both families and share out the resulting amount according to the total number of children in each family. The amendment seeks to implement the second of those alternatives, avoiding the situation, which the Select Committee was anxious to avoid, of first and second-class children in the second family--those who could count for child maintenance and those who could not. I believe that this issue is worth debating. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: We on these Benches view this amendment with a good deal of sympathy. Under the old legislation the treatment of stepchildren was one of its great failures. I shall not in a hurry forget correspondence from several families in second marriages who were, with some agony, contemplating the prospect that they might have to break up if the legislation was not changed. I shall not forget either the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, playing "the boy stood on the burning deck" when I raised a case where the stepfather was dead and therefore the absent parent was being made to maintain the household including him. All the noble Lord could say was that the responsibility for maintaining stepchildren is that of their natural fathers. He was not able to change it for circumstances because the legislation did not allow him to. I have rarely been more sorry for a Minister trying to reply to me.
	The basic principle that we must bring to this issue is that all children in a household should count equally. The amendment is a serious attempt to achieve that principle. I like what I have seen about it. I shall listen to the Minister's reply to it but with a presumption that the amendment is heading in the right direction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for tabling it and for moving it.

Lord Northbourne: I have enormous respect for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I feel that I have to raise a contrary issue in the context of this amendment. It troubles me that what the amendment says is that it is okay for the father to walk away from his responsibilities to his first children and to take on another family even if he cannot afford it. That surely flies in the face of any attempt we might be making as a society to say that fathers are responsible for the children they bring into the world.

Earl Russell: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is one that I have discussed many times over, especially with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he was Minister. The point he makes has merit on a moral plane, but people have been doing this since the beginning of recorded history. I could give the noble Lord cases from the seventh century, but I do not think that we need bother now. The point is that the children of such unions do exist. The children of such unions have stomachs. They need to be maintained. I do not believe that visiting the sins of the fathers on the children should be a principle which guides action of the state in its legislative capacity. Once one accepts that, however correct is the noble Lord's point on a moral plane, I do not think it should have priority in guiding legislation. Nevertheless, I understand the basis of the noble Lord's concern.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 15 seeks to change the way that child support liability is calculated in cases where the non-resident parent has children living with him in a second family. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the amendment provides for the non-resident parent's liability to children in his first family to be a proportionate share of his liability for all the children in his first and second families.
	That would mean, for example, that where there is liability for one child, with another child in the second family, maintenance would be assessed as 20 per cent of net income with one half--10 per cent--being paid to the parent with care. That differs from our proposals which provide for allowances for children in the second family--of 15, 20 or 25 per cent--to be deducted from the non-resident parent's net income before his liability for maintenance for his first family is calculated. Under the system that we are proposing, where there is liability for one child, with another child in the second family, the non-resident parent would have 15 per cent of his net income deducted for the child in the second family and the maintenance liability would be estimated therefore as 15 per cent of 85 per cent for the first child in the first family as opposed to 10 per cent of 100 per cent, which is the system proposed by the noble Lord. Those are the differences. The noble Lord proposes 10 per cent for each child. Our system docks 15 per cent of the income and then 15 of the 85 per cent that remains goes to the first child. Those are the two systems. Not surprisingly, the responses came back on a gender basis.
	We considered the matter very seriously. Some countries go for one system and some countries go for another. We decided to prioritise the first family because 10 per cent of 100 per cent is less than 15 per cent of 85--it is about 12.5 per cent. In the second family we were taking into account all children. We concluded that there should be no first and second class children and that an allowance should be made in the new system for all children who live with the non-resident parent, including any stepchildren. We also decided that any maintenance which the non-resident parent or his partner might be receiving for their children would be totally ignored. Given, therefore, that we were doing so much more for children in the second family, which I think is right and decent, it seemed also only right that we should give a slight tilt to the first family so that it was not substantially disadvantaged.
	An example may help. A father has net earnings of £250 a week. He breaks up with his partner. He is liable for maintenance for one child in the first family and the parent with care receives £37 a week as maintenance. That is the 15 per cent on his £250. He then moves in with a woman with three children whom she has brought from a previous relationship or two--none of them his. Under our system, he would now pay £28 a week compared with the original £37. He would be paying £9 a week less by virtue of the responsibilities for the stepchildren. She would have seen her income as the parent with care drop from £37 to £28 because he had moved in with someone who already had children.
	Under the amendment, one would add up the three, add the one, make four, and she would receive only £16 a week. So under the terms of the amendment the parent with care would see her maintenance fall from £37 a week to support the child, on an income of £250, to £16 simply because he had moved in with someone who had several children. If he moved out two years later, still with no children of his own, her income would rise again to £37 a week.
	That amount of drop-down, over which she has no control and which depends on what he is doing, what relationships he has moved into, and what children his new partner may have brought into the relationship, leaves her income too fragile to his actions. That is why we have gone for the arrangement in the Bill, with a slight tilt to the first family. It means that if he, having left that first family, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, takes on responsibilities for a second family, he does so knowing what his overriding responsibilities for that first family are. It is still decent. We are still recognising, as is not done under the current system, a greater weight for the children in the second family, but we are not suggesting, for example, in the case I gave that the woman's income could possibly be halved because he has temporarily (or possibly permanently) moved in with a woman with several other children.
	If we were to follow the terms of the amendment, in all fairness we should have to exclude any deductions in the second family for stepchildren or children that were biologically not his. Otherwise, it would not be fair: the maintenance that the parent in the first family would receive would be dependent entirely on whom he had moved in with and what children she had. I do not believe that that would be right. I believe it is better to treat all children in the second family alike, whether the biological children or the stepchildren of that family. But that means that, in order to protect the first family from too sudden a drop in income, we need to tilt the calculation to the first family, as our proposals do.
	I suggest that this is a package. Either Members of the Committee accept our proposals, which tilt to the first family but allow an offset for all children, including stepchildren, in the second family, or we can do as the noble Lord suggests in his amendments and treat the first children in the first family in exactly the same way as the children in the second family; but then, in all decency, the stepchildren would have to be excluded. I believe that the implications of having "first-class" and "second-class" children in the second family taken into account for assessment purposes would be wrong.
	Having made extra provision for stepchildren, we thought it only right to protect the children in the first family by giving that extra tilt. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, stepchildren can exist in both first and second families. In working out the calculations, did the Minister take into account the fact that those stepchildren might be in receipt of child support payments from their own estranged parents?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, that was indeed one of the areas of complexity that we did not want to get into--because, if we did, we should have to see whether the child support was adequate; we should have to chase the income of his new partner's ex-partner's income in order to make that calculation. Either we strip all of this out, on the grounds that the numbers are not worth the pursuit, or we include it all. I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell: either it is all included, or it is stripped right down. There is no middle way.
	That was the failure, with the best possible intentions, of the child support system that we inherited. It attempted to apply a formula or rate--which was still too complicated and did not get the money flowing--but then, when the money did not flow, it kept attempting to tinker with the system, which meant that there was even less chance of the money flowing. The result was all the bureaucracy of the formula and none of its simplicity, and all the complexity and unfairness of the courts, and none of the tailored fairness. It seems that we must take one route or the other. It is a perfectly proper question to ask. We have pulled all those calculations out, and we have said that the stepchildren in the first family will not be taken into account; the stepchildren in the second family are taken into account, but in that case we need to protect the parent with care in the first family so that her income for her children is not vulnerable to the person with whom he moves in and the children whom she has brought into the relationship. It is a decent alternative.
	We spent a great deal of time on this issue. The reason we went for this alternative rather than the formula suggested by the noble Lord was that, at the end of the day, I did not believe it right to make a distinction between "first-class" children in the second family and "second-class" children in the family. If we start with the well-being of the child, and do not make a distinction between biological and stepchildren in the second family, we must then put some protection in place for the children of the first family. That is why we have tilted the provision in the way that we have.
	I am sorry to have given a rather long explanation, but the matter is complicated and technical. At the heart of it is what is in the best interests of all the children. I really do believe that we have got it right. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, replies, I should like to thank the Minister for a carefully considered explanation, which I must read, but shall do so with a great deal of sympathy. Perhaps I may ask her one more question. How, under these proposals, will the system treat children in the household who may be relatives but are not natural or stepchildren? Let us take, for example, nephews and nieces whom a couple are bringing up because their natural parents are dead. Will any account be taken of a case like that?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, it will.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I should like to read the Minister's response. These are rather complicated issues. One needs to sit down and look at them in black and white before one can take a clear view. In considering what the Minister said, I shall be considerably influenced by what has seemed to me a very clear feature of second marriages; namely, that the second family typically has a higher income than the first family originally had. Frequently the husband's or wife's income has gone up in the meantime, and they are determined--we are back to the point about bitterness--that the first family should have as little as possible. The Minister's statement that the Bill tilts the income away from the second family and towards the first is perhaps to be taken into account.
	On the previous amendment the Minister was anxious not to become involved in the matter of stepchildren, the fathers of stepchildren and other such matters. The reality is that in the circumstances she has described the Child Support Agency may well insist that the father of the stepchildren in the second marriage ought to contribute something towards them, and that that ought to be taken into account in assessing how much should be transferred to the first family.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A gallant try! But in that situation the new partner, because she is with the ex-partner of the first parent, is not on benefit and it is therefore not a matter for the CSA.

Lord Higgins: But she may be.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How can she be on benefit if she is in a new relationship with him?

Lord Higgins: He is earning.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He may be earning or he may be on benefit. Let me attempt to explain without using shorthand. The father of the first family, the non-resident parent, is in a relationship with a woman who has children whom she has brought into the relationship. I am asked whether the CSA would have an interest in whether her ex-partner is contributing through child support maintenance to the support of her children whom she has brought into the second family. The point is that the CSA would be required to have an interest only if she, the parent of those children, was seeking benefit. But because she is in a new relationship--with the ex-partner of the first family--she would not be seeking benefit; therefore, the CSA would have no remit, unless, of course, she chose as a private case to come to the CSA.

Lord Higgins: That makes an overwhelming case for reading what the Minister said--subject to any corrections that may be made! On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Dyslexia

Lord Laird: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that account is taken in education programmes and in the workplace of the particular abilities of those classed as dyslexic.
	My Lords, this evening I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a rather misunderstood topic about which I feel strongly: dyslexia. To commence this debate, it is worthwhile underlining exactly what dyslexia is. Dyslexia is a "processing difference" which can take a number of different forms. Unlike other disabilities, it is not obvious but nevertheless can cause individuals all kinds of problems. Most people do not realise just how widespread it is. Dyslexia comes from a Greek word which means "difficulty with words". This is now recognised as a misnomer. Although literary difficulties may be a feature of dyslexia, there is a whole range of associated problems. These include difficulty with memory, and visual or auditory problems which may affect the way in which the dyslexic person performs in the workplace. He may have trouble remembering appointments and understanding instructions. The writing of reports or any kind of written information that requires good literary skills and clear logical thinking may create stress.
	For some individuals a large amount of reading may be an overload, often because of visual problems. Often these difficulties are in contrast to specific areas of excellence. Dyslexics can be skilled in verbal communication and have interpersonal skills or visual talents. They can make good designers, draftsmen and engineers, or have skills in dealing with people. While dyslexics are known for their originality of thought, they often feel frustrated by a lack of confidence in some areas. There is a high incidence of dyslexia which is a complex condition that affects a child's whole reading experience, not just the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills. Increasingly, scientific research points to a neurological base and differences in the parts of the brain that process language. Initially, the condition affects the acquisition of basic reading, writing and spelling skills. Difficulties can be identified as soon as a child starts school because he or she begins to fall behind classmates.
	The Government estimate that in the UK 350,000 children suffer from dyslexia. That figure is drawn from a debate in your Lordships' House on 15th December 1997. Dyslexia occurs across the ability spectrum, from the least to the most able. The challenge facing schools is to offer dyslexic children the opportunity to make the best use of their particular strengths. The neurological differences that cause the difficulties associated with dyslexia are also thought to facilitate different ways of thinking. While dyslexia affects up to 10 per cent of the population, within the creative professions the proportion appears to be much higher. Lateral thinking, problem solving, the ability to make creative leaps and to see things from every angle are all skills associated with dyslexia. Successful dyslexics often believe that even though they had a bad time at school the condition and their response to it has been responsible for their abilities in their chosen fields. Sometimes they speak of having the right information in their heads but an inability to express it clearly either in speech or in writing.
	Coping with their own problems can be made worse by other people being unable or unwilling to understand their difficulties. Someone may suffer stress because he does not understand his specific difficulties, yet there are often simple solutions to problems. The mix of competence and inefficiency may make the dyslexic a difficult employee and his problems may act as a barrier to recognition of skill and further promotion. Often the dyslexic feels conscious of his or her problem and is in a dilemma whether to tell colleagues about the condition. The fear of failure and exposure is particularly unsettling.
	Modern information and communication technology greatly facilitates dyslexic people. Voice-activated word-processors, computers that can read back and search facilities on the Internet enable the dyslexic to access new information and express himself or herself on paper with greater ease and confidence.
	My experiences as a dyslexic at school many, many years ago had a major impact in shaping my life, personality and career. Being small for my age at junior school and considering myself stupid and inarticulate, that period was easily the most dreadful, humiliating, hurtful and loathsome of my life to date. Incidents at the hands of fellow pupils and teachers are burnt into my mind and flood back during unguarded moments to make me still, today, sick with fear and worry. But I have no bitterness towards the school or anyone else. In the 1950s few had heard of the word "dyslexia". I know very well the strategies and tactics that are used to cover these failings and to move on. Many of the ploys are themselves creative, but I believe that for many the lack of self-confidence and self-belief still lingers. I recall the relief 15 or so years ago at the realisation that there was a reasonable explanation for what I considered to be an abnormal and poor school career. In recent years it has been a relief, and also refreshing, to be able to declare oneself to be dyslexic and to offer support to those in a similar position.
	Like myself, most of today's dyslexic adults were not diagnosed while at school. Labelled as stupid, thick or lazy, they still have to come to terms with learning but now as adults. Many feel that they have under-achieved in their working lives as a result of an undiagnosed problem. We in this country cannot boost the skills base of our adult population without acknowledging dyslexia and the creative strengths and benefits that adults with this condition can bring to society.
	The strides made in understanding dyslexia over the past few decades have been significant, but, in common with many others, I believe that much more must be done. The issue has been addressed at school level with some important results. Clearly, the first step is a process of education for all. We must identify the difficulty and put in place methods to deal with it. However, I look further. At all levels--in schools and beyond--the general public must be educated to understand the existence of the difficulty and, importantly, to value the role of dyslexics.
	Some major work has been undertaken in the field of education. One example of that is the well-documented work in Swansea. There the city and county local authorities have tackled the situation with vision by ensuring high levels of understanding. Nearer my home, schools like the Royal Belfast Academical Institution have done excellent work in developing an approach that is designed to remove dyslexia-driven disadvantages. As a governor of this school your Lordships will understand that I can speak with total objectivity.
	To be totally fair, the solutions must be made more applicable to the post-school section of the population. To their credit, the Government have done much but now we must all do more. There is a consensus among organisations to seek easy access to free assessment of adults. Basic skill tutors with specialist qualifications to teach such identified adults must be put in place. Adult learning programmes which offer a full understanding of the condition and its difficulties can then be initiated.
	Much important and successful work by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation has been undertaken among employers to ensure best practice at work. A campaign is urgently needed to raise awareness among employers to show that dyslexics can be a vital plus to any creative process and must be valued. A wider programme to achieve understanding among the general public is also important. More than anything, that will help to remove the stigma and, consequently, build self-confidence among sufferers.
	Lastly, there is a vital need to devote more resources to research into the causes and remedies of the condition. Here I ask the Minister to consider the significant findings of a research psychologist at the Queen's University of Belfast. Based on work which was started in the United States, Martin McPhillips, in a recent report in the Lancet, examined the effects of replicating primary reflex movements on specific reading difficulties in children. The concept is that certain reading difficulties are related to persistent primary reflexes in the earliest months of life. Research shows that a programme based on releasing these reflexes will help overcome some aspects of dyslexia. I understand that it is a totally new approach which has had significant results. I recommend this research to the Government as worthy of study and consideration.
	In today's inclusive society, when collectively we require every talent of all of our people to succeed as well as to liberate more human satisfaction, we overlook dyslexics at our cost. Many famous high achievers from the past were dyslexics. They, we, all have a part to play, and I look with much expectation to the Government for further support and encouragement.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. Dyslexia and its first cousin dyspraxia are pretty common conditions. They were widely undiagnosed in the past but we now have the chance to know how to recognise them. Where people have their eyes open, the conditions are seen to be fairly common. It is in our education system that we have to tackle the issue because that is where the condition can be dealt with. It is no good trying to teach coping strategies to those children when they become adults.
	The principal problem in education has been identification. Teachers do not know what to look for. I do not believe that such recognition is yet part of our curriculum in teacher training colleges. A friend's son, aged 17 and in the middle of A-levels, was found to have a reading age of 12. He was a bright child who had developed coping strategies, but a profound dyslexic. It had not been recognised because he had found a way of charming his way through to some desired result. I hasten to say that he was not in the state system.
	None the less the problem has been widespread in the state system. Indeed, in some areas there is a bias against identification because of the financial implications for local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, it has been estimated that there are 350,000 dyslexics in our school population; and one can add a number of dyspraxics to that. Using conventional methods to deal with the condition, the additional cost of providing those children with the educational support they should have would be several hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
	Therefore identification should be the first aim; and for the child that is essential. The worst situation is for the child not to know what he is doing wrong. He does not understand why. He feels all right in his head but is being corrected for things which he is incapable of getting right. My son is dyspraxic and therefore finds reading a blackboard immensely difficult because of the way his eyes move. Unless that had been spotted, as it was, when he was about eight years-old, it would have caused him immense difficulty. He was being labelled as one of the "dumbos" of the class because he could not read what was on the blackboard. His eyes did not track that way at that distance.
	It is important for the children that the condition is identified. Once the child knows the problem he has, it is rather like knowing that he has a wooden leg--he can deal with it. It is identifiable. He knows why he is what he is. The parents can find sources of information. There are many support groups for dyslexia and dyspraxia. The situation becomes understandable and the child is able to value himself. He knows that he has the disability but is none the less able to cope with life rather than accumulating an immense weight of negative self image. That is what occurs when one does not understand what is happening.
	After identification comes assessment. That is an obligation on local authorities. I believe that it is widely recognised as an obligation that they try to dodge. We have to find a better way for local authorities to finance it. For local authorities to have to hide the moment a child is in need of special educational support in an expanding area like dyslexia must be wrong. It is not the way in which we deal with matters in the National Health Service. We must not expose local authorities--they are the budgetary unit--to this stress. Where there is a diagnosed need, we must ensure that the finances will be provided and that the rest of the educational system does not suffer.
	We need to ensure that teachers are well equipped to deal with dyslexics and dyspraxics: that they know the problems that occur with those children; that, for example, inattention is not a matter of option but the way in which the nervous systems of those children are built. Teachers need to know how to deal with the situation so that such inattention does not become a disruption in class or hold up the child's education.
	There is a great deal that we know already which we can do better. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know that there was a television programme on dyslexia in Scottish prisons. It was discovered that over half the juvenile offenders were dyslexics. They had got nowhere at school although when their IQs were tested they were quite bright. That is a common position throughout the UK and accords with my general experience.
	I wish to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said about treatment. Reading the dyslexia websites, it seems as though there is a conspiracy to suggest that there is no treatment for this condition; that one can apply palliatives to it, and that there are methods of teaching which will make matters slightly better, but no cure. That is not the case. I have seen children cured of dyslexia. That is not to say that every case of dyslexia can be cured. It is a complex disease. There may be many types, degrees or causes of it. But I have seen children cured using the method described by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It is well established in a number of forms in this country although quite hard to find. I can find no reference to it on any of the main dyslexia websites. It is a great disappointment that the dyslexia industry (as it were) should have decided to turn its back on treatments rather than drawing them to parents' attention and putting pressure on the Government to have those methods evaluated. It costs a great deal of money to evaluate a dyslexia treatment. One has to follow children for a long time, with heavy assessment of them before, during and after the course of the treatment. One needs a fair number of children to achieve a statistically significant result.
	Watching the results of the practice described by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is extraordinary. One can see the fetal and childish reflexes in the way the child reacts to stimuli. A year later they are not there. A child who could not catch a ball thrown gently from six feet away can now play cricket. It is astonishing to see what can be done.
	There are other methods too. There are methods--I do not know them closely--associated with colour, attacking and re-educating the nervous system. We should not think of our nervous system as being programmed from birth in a specific way. It is an extremely flexible and adaptive instrument. We should be looking for ways to take advantage of it. Faced with the expenditure they are likely to have in relation to dyslexia and dyspraxia, the Government should devote the odd million pounds or so from the several hundreds of millions they are likely to spend on this condition on research for cures. A cure will be a great deal cheaper than the cost of treatment during a child's whole school career.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for raising the issue before the House. I liked the manner in which be brought it forward and the way in which he described the general perception of dyslexia. However, my views are in conflict with those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in stating that dyslexia is a disease and that there is a cure. I know he must have expected that reaction. All the research shows that it is a disability with which one can learn to live.
	Learning sports encourages one's reflexes to catch a ball and that will deal with certain aspects of dyslexia. Other practices will help, but terms of cure are not appropriate. Research shows that the condition is related to the structure and construction of the brain and nervous system. We may be able to change certain patterns and deal with the process, but, according to most scientific information I have seen, dyslexia is not a condition that can be cured. One can learn to deal with it.
	Dyslexia is also surrounded by myths. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to coloured lenses. I tried them and they had a minor effect probably, as someone explained to me, because I also have a secondary condition that is common among dyslexics. It is a common genetic condition which is carried through the generations. Colour sensitivity may be an issue that is explained in those terms. Although we are not debating that, I felt that I had to say that straightaway.
	There is a fundamental difference between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself and probably most of the people involved. To say that someone can be cured of dyslexia denies that it is a disability. In fact, everyone involved in the movement has approached it as a disability. It is something that one is born with and which never leaves. If one is moderately dyslexic, one might receive the right tuition and emotional support at an early age and be able to deal with the problem, especially if one is of high intellectual ability. It may be only a minor irritant or may be totally unknown. However, dyslexia is definitely a disability. To ignore that and to suggest that it can be cured opens the door to many other approaches.
	Having dealt with that issue, I must declare my interest. I am dyslexic; I am the vice president of the British Dyslexia Association; and I am a patron of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation. I am also president of my local dyslexia association, which my mother started with the inspiration of myself and my younger brother. The main approach to dealing with dyslexics must be the early detection of the condition, which means recognition within the school system. In that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That is the first step.
	Can the Minister remind the House how much time is given in basic teacher training to recognising dyslexia and other special needs? I cannot remember the exact statistics, but I remember that the figure was alarmingly low. The condition must be discovered early and the child told that he has a disability. I did not fall down the pit; I only stared into it, because my condition was spotted in time. However, it was at a time when it was only talked about and recognised within the state system. Not enough was known to do anything about it. However, I survived the labelling process.
	Early recognition is undoubtedly helpful, but we must try to adopt a more rounded approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, initially said, the problem lies not only with reading and writing. I do not know how many times I have explained that I am dyslexic and people have asked, "Does that mean that you get your Bs and Ds wrong?". People are beginning to recognise the word "dyslexia" and the problems with basic spelling and the construction of words or letters on a page, but the condition is more than that. It affects sequencing, remembering numbers correctly and the organisation of time. Those things do not come easily to dyslexics--as my Whips office will undoubtedly testify!
	We must try to work those aspects into our whole approach. In schools and in further education more help is now being given to the structuring of work and managing the disability than to telling someone to go away and take another phonetics course. It is a total waste of time to give a young adult, especially one under pressure of examinations, an extra dollop of work. The same applies to an adult running a business who wants to undertake further training. I have received briefing showing that the Armed Forces are beginning to give help in structuring and managing the problem. That is infinitely more useful.
	How many working adults have the time or energy to throw into the training? I suggest very few. Lessons in structuring and managing the problem and an explanation of it will give the person an advantage. Schools can learn greatly from that, and the example of Swansea has been mentioned. However, unless that approach spreads further into the schools and further education system we shall have more problems. We must tackle the problem in a holistic manner.
	It is my turn now to have a swipe at bureaucracy. I was told by everyone that, in order to go to university, I had to have an English language qualification. So I dictated my paper in my O-level examination. If ever there was a useless piece of paper, that was it. You can dictate an English language written examination paper. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will encourage higher education institutions in the belief that such a practice is childish and can be destructive to development. It is a little like saying to someone in a wheelchair, "Go and do a cross-country run". Nothing is achieved. You can, as I did, get someone to carry you around the course, but it means nothing. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that such information and guidance will be issued.
	The "growth industry" of the discovery of dyslexia in prisons surprises no one who gives the matter a second thought. If you happen to be an educational failure and crime is an option to you or your peer group, you will probably take it if you are denied the usual prospects of employment. I discovered that when I worked for a prison charity, the Apex Trust, many years ago. I reached that spontaneous conclusion, only to discover that many people had done so before me. There is good practice in prisons, but it has been described to me as being like a dessert which has one or two oases within it. Examples of good practice are occurring across the Prison Service, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the service as a whole is undertaking to provide coherent guidance across the board in order to ensure that people have access to help and support. That has a huge potential for ensuring that people escape the offending cycle by making themselves employable. That must be taken on board and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do so.
	We are dealing with a disability whose ramifications affect about 10 per cent of the population. Four per cent of people are regarded as having severe educational problems. The ramifications spread throughout life, not just within the schools system. I hope that tonight we shall hear further commitment to following the problem not only through the schools system but into the place of work and to all those who are given further training.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for initiating this debate on the important subject of dyslexia. At this point, I must say also how much I believe many noble Lords will miss Lord Renwick, who is an excluded hereditary Peer. As noble Lords know, he took a special interest in, and spoke in this House on, this subject. I am delighted to say that he continues to be involved with the British Dyslexia Association.
	As has already been said, dyslexia is a complex condition. It is estimated by the British Dyslexia Association that it affects approximately 10 per cent of the population, and it would appear to be more common in males than in females. The condition affects in varying degrees co-ordination, reading, spelling, writing, memory, concentration and the processing of information. There is some evidence that dyslexia is an hereditary condition. However, we know--here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington--that it continues throughout life. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, many people with the condition can and often do display creative, artistic and other practical skills.
	The challenges are to identify the condition as early as possible and to develop strategies to help overcome those areas of difficulty. As already stated, the Government's own estimate of the number of children who are dyslexic is 350,000; that is, approximately 20 per cent of all children with special educational needs. I understand that the British Dyslexia Association agrees with that figure.
	However, that number probably accounts for only those who are formally statemented. Of real concern are the children whose condition falls short of the criteria for a formal statement. If one takes the population as a whole, it is estimated that 4 per cent are severely affected and up to 10 per cent have milder forms of the condition, which can still present problems. If the individual has not developed practical ways and strategies to overcome difficulties, those problems become exacerbated as time progresses.
	Again, as has already been said, the key is early identification and appropriate intervention. Ofsted carried out a survey of provision in mainstream schools for pupils with special educational needs, including dyslexia. In its report published last year, Ofsted confirmed that, where their learning difficulties were identified and addressed early, pupils made better progress than those who received additional help at a later stage, often just before they transferred to a secondary school.
	In many local education authorities, it was common, for example, for pupils with dyslexia to be identified at stages 1 to 3 of the special educational needs register in the primary school and for a statement to be produced only during the final year in preparation for secondary school. One reason for that given by Ofsted was that there was perhaps a reluctance on the part of teachers to admit that the school could not meet pupils' needs from within its provision for special educational needs.
	The report also found that all too often provision was made only as a result of pressure from parents who were left to convince schools and/or local education authorities of their children's difficulties. Parents also complained about the time taken to carry out assessments and to issue appropriate statements. Among many parents interviewed by Ofsted was a strong feeling that all that resulted in the loss of valuable time during which the behavioural problems of the children increased, learning deteriorated and there was a significant lowering of the child's self-esteem and confidence.
	Regular assessment and testing that came with the introduction of the national curriculum provides the early warnings necessary for teachers to identify learning difficulties. However, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, there are many other innate signs for the teacher to spot before those formal assessments are made. Other tell-tale symptoms often include a disruptive pattern of behaviour or signs of withdrawal from the normal activities with other children within the classroom.
	Although the national literacy strategy is of considerable benefit to children with specific learning difficulties, some pupils' educational needs call for supplementary additional approaches. However, for too long it was unfashionable to admit to the condition of dyslexia--it was often referred to as the "middle-class disease"--in part due to the more discerning parents who would complain persistently and regularly about the problems experienced by their children.
	However, there is now widespread agreement that dyslexia exists. Interestingly, more and more celebrities and well-known national figures have talked openly of their own difficulties of growing up with the problem and the various ways in which they were, or, indeed, were not, helped while at school. All that has helped to raise the profile of dyslexia and to emphasise the importance of early identification and intervention.
	Having said that, there are still examples--we have heard about them tonight from the noble Lord, Lord Laird--of children being bullied and accused of being "stupid", "thick" or "brainless" by other children. Apart from the requirement of schools to have a robust policy to deal with bullying for whatever reason, dealing with the root cause of learning difficulties will do more to resolve the problem and to restore self-esteem and self-confidence.
	My understanding is that awareness and early assessment of dyslexia were addressed by the Teacher Training Agency when it was set up. It would be extremely cost-effective to provide not only special needs teachers but all teachers in their initial and subsequent training with the skills to deal with pupils who have problems of co-ordination and learning to read. That is so, first, because the incidence of children who are dyslexic exists in most schools and, the British Dyslexia Association would argue, also in most classrooms, particularly at primary school level. Secondly, disruption levels in the classroom are reduced by resolving learning difficulties early, and that makes the life of a teacher less fraught. Thirdly, successful intervention at an early stage will reduce the number of statements which are required by pupils. That, in turn, will release more resources for schools. It would prove a virtuous circle, and it may be possible for the Minister to bring us up to date on the content of teacher training courses.
	Again, as has already been mentioned, the District Auditor and the British Dyslexia Association have singled out Swansea local education authority for the way in which it allocates monies to special education, both within its budget and through the application of GEST funding. As I understand it, Wales does not yet have a standards fund. Swansea LEA had a high number of children with statements and a high level of dissatisfaction from parents with regard to its policy and attitude towards dyslexia.
	Based on the outcome of a forum of parents, teachers, special educational needs advisers and education psychologists to discuss provision for pupils with dyslexia, Swansea produced a guide to dyslexia-friendly education. It has made funding available to schools for the special educational needs of children, both statemented and non-statemented. Children are systematically assessed. In the first instance, the assessment concentrates on reading and writing skills. Following diagnosis, the intensity of support needed is determined. That leads to focused, timely and appropriate provision.
	Every member of staff is expected to understand dyslexia. By 2001, it is intended that every school will have a specialist dyslexia teacher. Again, that will benefit all children; not only those with dyslexia. Three years on, Swansea has reduced quite significantly the number of children with dyslexia who require statements for special education, and I understand that parental satisfaction has been restored.
	Getting things right in school for today's children will remove many of the problems that people with dyslexia experience in later life. However, there are still too many adults who were not diagnosed at an early stage and who continue to experience problems. Under-achievement is a common feature. From my time as a Home Office Minister, I know that a disproportionate number of people in our prisons and on probation programmes have dyslexia-related problems.
	Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that impressive work is undertaken by professionals and by the voluntary sector; for example, by SOVA (the Society of Voluntary Associates) and by the Adult Literacy Basic Skills Unit, which I believe has recently changed its name. An enormous amount of research and development work has also been undertaken using technology. I remember in particular an effective experimental project for teaching children with dyslexia by the Harris City Technology College, in conjunction with Canterbury University. There was an extremely innovative use of technology in that instance. It would help to know from the Minister whether the number of tutors with specialist qualifications to teach dyslexic adults is increasing. What arrangements are in place for adults with dyslexia to gain access to appropriate courses? What evaluation has there been of innovative research in the field of dyslexia?
	The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provided some legal protection for adults, although dyslexia is not specifically listed as a disability. However, the DfEE's code of practice issued in 1996 envisaged circumstances in which dyslexia would count as a disability for the purposes of that legislation. Does the Minister have any information as to how the Act is working in that respect?
	The importance of addressing the issue of assessment, education and training for people of all ages with dyslexia cannot be overstated because 10 per cent of the population with the condition represents a considerable waste of skill and talent to the country as a whole. For that reason, I want to thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for the opportunity he has created for this debate.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for tabling this Question and giving the House an opportunity to discuss dyslexia today. It affects 4 per cent of the population, with a further 6 per cent displaying some dyslexic traits. The House will remember for a long time the noble Lord's moving account of his childhood. He made it clear that he was not just talking about his childhood but also that of many others who face the same problems. The House is very grateful to him.
	I begin by assuring the noble Lord and the House of the Government's awareness of dyslexia and specific learning difficulties. I am grateful to him for giving the Government some credit for what they have achieved so far. That is in no small part due to the positive and constructive working relationship we have with those organisations which support children and adults with dyslexia, such as the organisations we have heard about today; namely, the Dyslexia Institute, the British Dyslexia Association and the Adult Dyslexia Organisation.
	First, I would like to deal with our education programmes in attempting to answer the terms of the noble Lord's Question. All children have a right to an education that enables them to develop their full potential. The Government have clearly demonstrated their commitment to raising standards in education for all children, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities.
	We are committed to early identification and assessment of special educational needs of any kind, and I shall mention some of the practical steps we are taking.
	As has been said in the debate, it is of course particularly important that teachers are aware of the needs of children who have, or may be at risk of developing, special educational needs of any kind. Newly qualified teachers since September 1998 have to show that they can identify pupils who have special educational needs, including dyslexia. After qualification, teachers are required to complete an induction year, which gives them an opportunity to hone the skills they have developed during their initial teacher training. In-service teacher training in relation to dyslexia is specifically mentioned in the eligibility criteria for the department's standards fund grants for SEN teacher training. All local education authorities receive those grants which are calculated on a formula basis and each LEA receives an approved expenditure allocation against which the department pays 50 per cent grant. In-service teacher training is supported through the department's standards fund. This year, we are supporting £26 million of local education authority expenditure on the professional development of all those working with children with special needs, thereby ensuring that that is seen as a priority.
	We are working with the voluntary organisations to raise awareness; for example, the joint development of a poster providing hints for primary school teachers to help them identify those pupils with dyslexia. I have a copy of that in my hand. That clearly sets out the possible areas of weakness which could indicate dyslexia, while recognising that the child has areas of ability as well as weakness.
	The department has also provided a grant to help the British Dyslexia Association produce a schools resource pack entitled Achieving dyslexia friendly schools which refers to the efforts made in Swansea which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords in this debate. Over 20,000 copies have been distributed to schools and local education authorities. That pack promotes a "whole school" approach to supporting pupils with dyslexia, and provides examples of best practice.
	In July 1999 a seminar was held to bring together representatives from the main government departments and agencies, schools, LEAs, researchers, academics and the main dyslexia organisations to exchange views on the key educational issues in the areas of dyslexia. There was much common ground and a strong sense of shared purpose. Ways in which individual expertise and resources can be pooled were identified, and a consensus reached over a shared agenda for tackling issues in the areas of early identification, teacher training, and the use of information communications technology. The seminar has provided an excellent springboard for further action and an informal working group has been set up to take matters forward.
	The DfEE, the National Lottery Charities Board and WH Smith are funding a two-year "Spell It" study programme to evaluate literacy learning through an individualised tuition research project run by the Dyslexia Institute to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention. The project is targeted at seven year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key aspects of the project are to develop activities that parents can do at home and to share more widely the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers.
	It is also important that gifted children who have dyslexia are not overlooked. The Excellence in Cities initiative includes a gifted and talented children strand which will improve the education of up to 40,000 pupils, some of whom will have learning difficulties, including dyslexia. Pupils in 470 maintained secondary schools across 24 local education authorities in England will benefit. That programme is designed to support academically able pupils and those with talents in sport and the arts, including those who may be underachieving. We would expect schools to design teaching and learning programmes for such pupils which take account of their needs.
	My remarks so far have focused on the schools sector. I would now like to say a few words about further and higher education. Within further education, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) must have regard to the needs of people with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, in carrying out its key functions to secure further education. At local college level, this translates into individual FE colleges being able to obtain additional funding to provide any additional support required. For a dyslexic this may take the form of a note taker.
	Last year's report on adult literacy and numeracy from the working group chaired by Sir Claus Moser highlighted the needs of adults with learning difficulties or disabilities, and made a specific reference to those who suffer from dyslexia. The report called for a special study into the issue, aimed at assessing how far the working group's recommendations for basic literacy and numeracy were relevant to this other group of learners and what supplementary provision they might require. We set up a working group for that purpose last September. Membership comprises representatives of the key national organisations in relation to adults with learning difficulties or disabilities.
	In this context it may be appropriate to mention the Prison Service. The DfEE has discussed with the Prison Service and the Home Office a number of issues involving the implications of the Moser Report. I shall certainly ensure that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is brought to the attention of colleagues in the Home Office as to the important part that he believes that that can play in this area.
	We await the report from the working group, which should be with us fairly shortly. It will include a section relating to the needs of adults with dyslexia.
	The Learning and Skills Bill, which, as many noble Lords will remember, recently completed its passage through this House, will draw together responsibilities for further educational and adult and community education under one body; namely, the learning and skills council. We believe that that approach will better serve the needs of people with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, and will enable a broader range of provision to be considered when looking at how the needs of an individual with learning difficulties may be met.
	Of course, it is widely accepted that dyslexia need not be a bar to achievement in higher education. All higher education institutions in the UK admit dyslexic students and evidence suggests that the number of students with dyslexia has increased over recent years.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, called for more research into the causes of and remedies for dyslexia. He knows that there are always many competing demands for research funds. The SEN research component of the department's extensive research programme was developed through consultation with key stakeholders, including major SEN voluntary organisations, university education departments and those responsible for policy development in that area.
	The current research programme reflects the priorities that I have identified in the course of that consultation process--consultation with others such as the Department of Health, teacher training agencies and Ofsted. It is important that in a complex area such as dyslexia, policy development is informed by the latest thinking in terms of research findings. Therefore, we are particularly grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the recent report by Martin McPhillips, published in the Lancet.
	On employment issues, as noble Lords know, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 were brought into force in December 1996. A person with dyslexia can be covered by the Act's provisions. Under the Act, a code of practice was published in 1996 which provides practical guidance to employers. The code includes examples of adjustments that employers may make for people with dyslexia, and explains other ways in which the Act's provisions may affect them.
	However, we are aware that discrimination against disabled people in the workplace persists, and that that includes discrimination against people with dyslexia. We are tackling the problem in a number of ways, including by setting up the Disability Rights Commission, which opened for business at the end of last month and marks a major step towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
	Last year we launched the "See the Person" campaign. Promoting awareness and good practice amongst employers is essential. Legislation must go hand in hand with changes in attitudes to disability if discrimination is to be eradicated and opportunities improved. A recent employment tribunal case shows the sort of attitudes that need changing. A factory worker was bullied by his colleagues because of his dyslexia, which his managers did nothing to stop. The tribunal decided that he was discriminated against because of his disability and he was awarded £28,000.
	The "See the Person" campaign includes TV, press and radio advertisements, press articles, and publicity organised through employers' associations. It advertises the DRC's helpline, which provides good practice advice on employment issues and can refer callers to specialist organisations, such as the Dyslexia Institute, for specialist advice.
	Help may also be available for employees with dyslexia through the Employment Service Access to Work programme. That could take the form of IT equipment, speech software and voice recognition systems. I am also aware that the Adult Dyslexia Organisation has produced an in depth Guide on Employment, providing full details on ways of accommodating dyslexia in the workplace, contributors to which included the Employment Service, the TUC and the Employers Forum on Disability.
	In a fairly short time I have attempted to cover what the Government are doing in the education and the employment fields. If I have failed to answer any specific questions, I promise to write to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with the answers to their questions. I shall place copies in the Library.
	I conclude by thanking the noble Lord for raising this debate and for the contributions made by all noble Lords. We have had a wide-ranging debate and we have covered many issues. Of course, it is always right to celebrate the abilities of those with dyslexia. I hope that the Government's commitment and practical approach to education and employment issues will continue to improve the quality of life for everyone who has special needs or a disability and build on their strengths.

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 89, line 37, leave out from ("less") to end of line 41.

Earl Russell: Today I am slightly more fortunate in my timing than when I moved this amendment in 1991. I moved the amendment and then divided the House at 10 minutes to midnight with my Chief Whip standing at the Bar, beaming at me like a bishop giving the blessing. I hope that I shall not have to do it again, but the principle of this amendment is of some importance.
	The amendment seeks to delete the requirement to pay a flat rate of £5 binding on those receiving benefits of a prescribed kind. A "prescribed kind" is the usual open-ended phrase used by the department when it might want to do anything. Effectively, it refers mainly to people on income support or jobseeker's allowance. We are told that those are subsistence benefits--although of late that phrase has been heard less often. Another amendment to be moved later will address this point, but in fact there is no estimate available of the minimum needs necessary for good health. Many other countries calculate such an estimate, but we do not. But at least it is clear that income support and jobseeker's allowance do not provide any substantial surplus over minimum needs.
	Deductions from income support should be made very sparingly indeed. Already such deductions are used quite heavily to pay for gas bills, water bills, court fines and God knows what else. We all know of the Acheson report. That report stated that the level of income support was insufficient to maintain good health. The consequences of that may be quite serious. The Medical Research Council work on low birth weight is known by repute to many of us. It states:
	"Inadequate nutrition can impair cognitive development and is associated with educational failure among impoverished children. Nutrition early in life has a big impact on the development of the brain".
	By inflicting further hardship on people receiving income support or jobseeker's allowance, we may be facing longer term consequences of quite considerable severity.
	I do not understand exactly what useful purpose is served by such an adamant insistence on a flat rate payment of £5. I am sure that we shall again hear from the Minister much of what we heard on the amendment concerning the parent with care who is rich; namely, about the abstract principle. On occasion there is much to be said for abstract principles, but when those abstract principles cause real and gross hardship to people who are already suffering enough of it, without providing any substantial compensating benefit, then I tend to wonder whether that principle is perhaps mistaken.
	Successive governments, in adhering to this flat rate £5 deduction from those on income support, have been inflicting a quite unnecessary degree of hardship and have been achieving nothing for it. If they are that determined to continue with this requirement, then they will have to increase income support levels above the rate of inflation in proportion. At present I can see no sign that the Government will be willing to do that.
	I have reminded the Minister of what happened when I moved a similar amendment in 1991. I shall not repeat that tonight, but I cannot answer for what might happen during later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Originally, Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 23 were grouped together, because they all deal with the same matter. However, I see that the noble Earl is signalling otherwise. Amendment No. 18--from the Liberal Democrat Benches--seeks to establish that there should be no deduction from benefit for maintenance, including those people who currently have £5.20 deducted from JSA and IS. In particular, the amendment seeks to remove all references to cases where the non-resident parent or their partner is in receipt of a prescribed benefit, pension or allowance and leave only those whose income is £100 or less--those not receiving benefit--to be required to pay maintenance.
	Briefly, I should like to make three points. First, people on JSA and income support pay a contribution towards child maintenance. At present that contribution is £5.20. In the future we propose that it will be a flat rate of £5. Secondly, unlike at present where the £5.20 charge goes straight to the Treasury, in future the £5 will go directly to the child so that the child will share in the father's income, as it would if that family were an intact family and the father was claiming jobseeker's allowance and looking for work. I think that it is right that parents with care who are themselves on modest incomes can expect to see a contribution from the non-resident parent, whether it is £5 if he is on benefit, up to £10 if she is on benefit and he is in work or the full amount if both parents are in work.
	The reasoning behind this is not only because we think that it is better for the child if he or she knows that he or she is receiving support from the absent parent and not only because we wish to continue the practice of the existing system, but also because we know from figures of those on IS and JSA--in particular young men on JSA, the main benefit we are discussing here--that around two-thirds of those young men will be in work within six months. Three-quarters will find work within 12 months. I refer also to research from Australia that has been quoted in the House on previous occasions. We know that unless the habit of making maintenance payments is set up fairly quickly after separation, it becomes increasingly difficult to collect that money. People must be encouraged into the mindset that states that if their relationship breaks down, they must expect to pay maintenance.
	We know that most young people on JSA will be back in work within six months or at most a year. If we have not established the habit of making maintenance payments--a responsibility that goes along with the need to pay any arrears on rent, repaying social fund payments and so forth--then such young people are less likely to carry on making payments once they are back in work. For that reason, we are holding to the broad position of the previous administration on this, but reducing the rate from £5.20 to £5, ensuring that the benefit goes directly to the child and, lastly, continuing to support the principle that the need to establish the habit of making payments must be done early so that when that person moves into work, maintenance will continue to be paid. In the light of these points, I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.

Earl Russell: The Minister has invoked the matter of encouraging the habit of making payments. Before I respond, can she tell me what proportion of those presently assessed to pay the £5.20 actually pay it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The best statistics that I can offer the noble Earl is that of those who should be paying, around half of them do so.

Earl Russell: That does not strike me as a particularly convincing habit. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is not out of order with the statistics we inherited as regards those who were in work when we came into office. In 1997 we found that only around 30 per cent paid all the maintenance due, 30 to 40 per cent paid part of their maintenance, and the rest paid nothing at all. The mindset that payment was required was broken for everyone, whether or not they were in work--especially the self-employed. Those who paid regularly tended to be divorced, never had a continuing commitment to their children and recognised their obligations to that extent. While I entirely accept the noble Earl's point that the habit of maintenance has not been well established, that is something the system is designed to change.
	The other factor that has affected getting the money flowing has been the inability of Benefit Agency computers to talk to CSA computers. When a young person, for example, changes his benefit status, that may be recorded on BA computers but the CSA has to be informed manually. Our inability to obtain accurate statistics is criminal. All the statistics that I give have an associated health warning. The new system will not only see that the money goes to children but will be associated with robust IT systems that should provide an accurate snapshot of the individual's benefit status.

Earl Russell: The Minister knows perfectly well why I believe that so little of the money assessed under the 1991 and 1995 Acts has actually come in. In a great many cases, parents have been assessed to pay sums that are more than they can possibly pay--which instantly breaks the habit of payment before it has been instilled. The figures that the Minister has just given are simply another subset of that mistake. If those individuals had been allowed the six months that the Minister invoked, until they had an income, they would have picked up the habit of payment perfectly easily. It is the usual story of the Treasury shooting itself in the foot.
	I know perfectly well that the Minister thinks otherwise, but I am entitled to say to her that which she said to me earlier. I accept that she believes these things, but it does not follow that I have to do so. I do not. I accept that the money will go directly to the children, which is a good thing. But the money can only go to the children if it is actually there. The difficulty of living on income support is so considerable that it may not always happen. When the Minister described income support as a modest income, she was carrying euphemism to something near its outer limits. If the Minister had increased benefit levels by 20 per cent, I would have found the whole of her argument persuasive. I do not see that as an immediate prospect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment--but it is not the last that we shall hear of this issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 90, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert--
	("(a) is a student in full-time education at an educational establishment in the United Kingdom; or").

Baroness Buscombe: With this, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 22.
	These probing amendments are designed to clarify why the Government want powers to exempt various of non-resident parents--so-called proscribed descriptions--from their duty financially to support their children. The two categories in our amendments have been taken directly from the Explanatory Notes. Both are disturbing.
	We recognise and support the Bill's powerful theme that parents should be required to make a contribution to the upkeep of their children and to recognise the financial consequences of their actions, not take for granted that the taxpayer--someone else working hard to meet his or her responsibilities--should pick up the tab.
	We recognise also that the Bill takes account of persons who, with little resources, will make a minimum payment of £5. Do the Government intend to allow all who choose to enter full-time higher education or who find themselves in prison to abrogate entirely their responsibilities for their children?
	We know that many students need to take out loans to pay their fees and maintenance but many work. Most noble Lords can attest to that. I concede that under this government, funding one's way through full-time education is much tougher--except for those attending full-time education in Scotland, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
	What is more important--the pursuit of personal academic achievement or acceptance of responsibility, in however small a way, for one's own child? The Minister in another place, in response to a similar amendment, made much of the income of students and the number of student parents who account for the CSA's current workload. Those issues are irrelevant. Whether or not the numbers are small is also irrelevant. Either the Government are serious about requiring parents to meet their responsibilities or they are not. It worried me when the Minister said earlier in defence of ignoring minority cases in relation to Clause 1, "It is not worth it". Surely principle matters as well as practice.
	On Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that 30 per cent of parents pay nothing towards the upkeep of their children. The noble Baroness said that reform of the formula of the benefits system will provide incentives for parents to co-operate. We support reform that will incentivise responsibility but believe that the clause will do entirely the opposite. It will provide more opportunities for those wishing to negate their responsibilities. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: I do not wish to appear behind the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in my adherence to principle. The question is, which is the relevant principle? The guiding principle throughout our discussions has been doing the best thing for the children, although we have not always agreed on what that was. The question is even clearer for students than for people on income support. Most students have a lower income than if they were on income support--so if they are assessed to pay, they cannot do so.
	I once had a pupil who was assessed by the CSA because she became the partner of a man who was assessed by the agency. Finally, the CSA decided that the assessment was in error and it was withdrawn. Had that not been done, my pupil would have had no option but to withdraw from her education. That is the only effect of requiring students to contribute. They cannot live on the money provided and need extra earnings, to the great detriment of their work, to cope. If they withdraw from education, their long-term earnings may be significantly lower--so the money going to the children would be considerably less.
	The Minister might argue that such persons must pay immediately and give up their prospects. One could argue that is in the interests of the children. It is a difficult argument to make but not totally impossible. If the noble Baroness wishes to make that argument, she needs to come clean and say that is exactly what she is doing. Then we could discuss the matter on a real and serious basis. But to suggest that people should, at one and the same time, be students and pay maintenance under the CSA is not to be in the real world.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled. I did not understand the meaning of the amendment in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, did. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will interrupt if I have misunderstood, but I thought that this amendment sought to remove a general power to prescribe, in regulations, categories of non-resident parents who would have a nil-rate liability and to confine it to the very group to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred; that is, students, prisoners and those with a net weekly income of less than £5.
	According to my advice, that is what the amendment means. If that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, I shall be grateful if she will let me know. I understood her to be confining the nil-payment groups to students and prisoners. I was going to argue that a few other groups need to be included in that category. If she is indeed doing what the noble Earl fears she may be doing--that is, saying that nobody is exempt--I should like to have that elucidated.

Baroness Buscombe: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am trying to encourage the Minister to clarify what the Government's intention is. Is there a list of prescribed people? If so, who are they? We are taking the examples direct from the Explanatory Notes. In themselves we find them disturbing and I am happy to respond to the noble Earl in relation to escaping the real world; there is something very real about having children. But I ask the Minister to concentrate on clarifying what the clause intends.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. I shall not describe what I believe to be the effect of the amendments but come back to the intention of the Bill.
	The Bill proposes to prescribe for a group of people that they should have a nil maintenance liability. The first group of those would be students. I understand around 1,500 students are non-resident parents. We are proposing that, given that their income is loan based, for these purposes they should be regarded as having a nil income that is assessable for child support purposes. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I agree on that.
	The second group we are proposing should have a nil maintenance liability are prisoners, for fairly obvious reasons; that is, that they are imprisoned and have no access to earnings. The other categories that we have in mind to prescribe are persons receiving an allowance in respect of work-based training for young people or, in Scotland, skill seeker's training. But I cannot help the noble Baroness in relation to numbers in that regard; we do not possess any useful figures.
	The next group we are proposing to exclude from maintenance liability are 16 and 17 year-olds in receipt of income support or income-based job seeker's allowance. We believe there to be around 40 non-resident parents who are 16 or 17 year-olds in that category. We are proposing to exclude a child as defined under Section 55 of the Act. We are proposing to exclude a person in hospital who is receiving income support pocket money at the higher or standard rate which, as Members of the Committee will be aware, is a very modest sum (again, I cannot put a figure to that) and the 60 or so persons in residential care or nursing homes who either have their fees paid in full or in part by the local authority or are in receipt of a benefit which would normally attract a £5 flat rate liability.
	That need not be an exhaustive list. But at the moment that is the list we are proposing to prescribe for. In all cases, they either clearly have no income or, alternatively, so few, as possibly with students, have any serious alternative income that it is not worth the hassle.
	The noble Baroness criticised me saying that I said something along the lines that a parent with care's income was not worth it. I had that as number two or three in my shopping list of reasons. My first reason was equity and fairness, which the parent with care is already paying in kind. It seems to me that if I can show that something is not only not fair, but also not worth it in terms of administrative simplicity, then we have two good arguments and not just one. I was certainly not thinking simply in terms of mechanical expediency.
	Why are we doing this in regulations? Having the ability to prescribe in regulations provides us with the flexibility to add or amend categories where necessary and to reflect changes in other legislation. A simple transparent scheme is the only way to ensure that children receive the support they deserve. But the maintenance levels must be fair and reasonable. We are therefore seeking to exempt from those categories those who have no income. However, for the rare exception where there may be a mature student who has earnings or savings of the sort the noble Baroness might have in mind, parents with care will still be able to apply for a variation. Where a non-resident parent with a nil-rate liability, because they fall into a prescribed category, has nonetheless significant income or capital, the parent with care will still be able to apply for a variation.
	Let me give an example. Somebody may have been in work, had savings and so forth and then decides to do an MBA for a year. They become a student. They have a nil-rate liability. But the former partner knows perfectly well that they have substantial savings and income, some of which can reasonably be used to support the child. Or someone may have been in work and stopped work to become a student and therefore their maintenance liability stops. In that situation, the parent with care can then go to the tribunal and seek a variation on the grounds analogous to, "He is declaring £100 a week but is living on £500 a week and therefore I should like my child maintenance assessed as though his income were £500 a week". It comes into one of the two categories that I explained earlier; that is, the first being child-related expenses and the second where the income as reported is not a fair reflection of his true financial position.
	Should there be those few exceptions--we do not accept there are many--of either a mature or exceedingly rich student, then the parent with care will be able to apply for variation. But basically we are seeking to cut out of our trawl all of those who have no income to provide and at the same time seek to do it by regulations so that, if there should be other groups that I can conceive of that might fall within that category a year or two down the line, then we would have power to include them. It would then be up to your Lordships as to whether or not the House wanted, by affirmative regulation, to add to the proposals.
	I hope with the explanation that there is a good reason for doing it--that they have a nil income or in the rare case where there may be an income the parent still has the right to apply for a variation--the noble Baroness will agree that we have got the balance right in terms of simplicity, but with the possibility of variation in those rare circumstances where a student may have significant income or savings. Of the 1,500 students who are in this category, I should be surprised if 40 of those had an income or savings that would bring them into a significant calculation. But if that is the situation, then there is recourse to variation and that was designed to cover precisely those situations; for example, where someone reduces their income and transfers it all into capital to be exempt.
	I hope with that attempted explanation the noble Baroness will feel reassured and able to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Russell: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and to the Committee for having so seriously misunderstood her. I was trying to listen to her argument and to find the passage to which she referred in the Explanatory Notes at the same time. I did not succeed in letting my left ear know what my right hand was doing, and I am sorry.
	I found the Minister's explanation entirely persuasive and reasonable. I should like to ask her just one more question. In this category, is she proposing to prescribe asylum seekers?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I confess that I have not addressed my mind to that situation. If we think about it, asylum seekers are either families or single people. I can conceive where an asylum-seeking family splits up. But if the asylum seeker has nil income--I can hardly expect him to send over, say, 10 per cent of his vouchers--what will happen is that the one family will be treated, for asylum seeking purposes and vouchers, as a single person and a family. As we know, if their case is not expedited within six months, they fall back onto the benefit system.
	In all seriousness--I should not tease the noble Earl about this--I find it hard to envisage that circumstance arising. But I shall reflect on it and if I can add anything further to that answer, I shall write to the noble Earl.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the subject of students in Scotland not having to pay tuition fees. In view of the fact that students in Scotland will be paying tuition fees on a deferred basis--that is, when they start earning more than £10,000 a year--will those payments be taken into account when child support payments are being calculated?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This may be my folly, but we are talking here not about liability for tuition fees but for loans for maintenance. I am not making a distinction for these purposes between Scottish and English students.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I can rephrase the question. When a Scottish student subsequently pays tuition fees on the deferred scheme, which we have now enacted, will those deferred payments be taken into account when the CSA payments are considered?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is no intention to backdate, any more than somebody taking up work would be backdated for payments they had not made, if they are on benefit. The payment will begin at the point that liability commences, when there is an income.
	I have received some very helpful information in response to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell about asylum seekers. As they are not habitually resident, they do not therefore have any subsequent liability.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am very grateful for her reference to the variation orders. I do feel, however, that there is an inconsistency with the previous amendment. The Minister said that it was important to get people into the habit of paying maintenance. It is difficult to equate the two statements. There will be situations where students and those in prison, for example, can negate their responsibility, and they will not get into the habit of paying maintenance due to their circumstances. They have no income, but they have a responsibility, the most important responsibility on this earth, in my view, and that is for children.
	I accept the apology made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I apologise for not clarifying that I was drawing the information from the Explanatory Notes.
	I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos.22 and 23 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No.24
	Page 90, line 20, leave out paragraph 7.

Baroness Buscombe: I should like to move Amendment No.24 and also speak to Amendment No.25.
	Amendment No.24 simply deals with an inconsistency, that paragraph 7 in Schedule 1 only applies to certain circumstances with regard to shared parenting. We believe that it should apply whatever the circumstances.
	The wording in Amendment No.25 speaks for itself. We feel that amendments to the level of maintenance payable should, in all fairness, be backdated to the date of cessation of care and not, as currently stated in the Bill, when the Child Support Agency reaches its decision. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have some difficulty because I had understood the import of the amendments rather differently. I had understood that Amendments Nos.24 and 25 were probing amendments about the Government's philosophy on shared care, probing the circumstances in which there would be an abatement of maintenance. Amendment No.24 seeks to remove the possibility of any reduction of maintenance liability for those parents liable to pay basic or reduced rates to share the care of a child.
	I am perfectly willing to return to these amendments and pursue the matter in correspondence. My briefing is very much at odds with the noble Baroness' introduction, which, if I may say so, was extremely brief, which also did not help me.

Baroness Buscombe: I apologise to the Minister. Amendment No.24 is confined to a very narrow point. There is an inconsistency as to who comes under the heading of those with shared care, in that paragraph 7 only applies to certain circumstances with regard to shared parenting. We believe it should apply in all circumstances.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As this point is quite technical, can the noble Baroness write to me? If I am not able to meet her points, we could re-address the issue at Report or Third Reading.

Baroness Buscombe: I accept the suggestion. Can the Minister also come back on Amendment No.25?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding of Amendment No.25 is that it relates to cases where the non-resident parent has a nil rate of liability because he is receiving social security benefit and shares the care of the child. Is that the noble Baroness' understanding of the amendment? If not, it would be sensible to follow the same procedure of an exchange of letters. We could put copies in the Library.

Baroness Buscombe: I share the Minister's stance. Perhaps we should revert to correspondence on the matter, in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No.27.
	Page 91, leave out lines 33 to 45.

Earl Russell: Amendment No.27 deals with a matter of drafting. It has picked up what became known in our debates on the jobseeker's Bill as a Humpty-Dumpty clause. It is Section 10A of Schedule 1, page 91, line 33 onwards.
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that--
	(a) paragraph 2 is to have effect as if different percentages were substituted for those set out there;
	(b) paragraph 3(1) or (3), 4(1), 5 or 7(7) is to have effect as if different amounts were substituted for those set out there."
	It really is a case of words meaning what I say they mean.
	I have two questions to ask about this matter. First, what does the Minister intend it to mean? Second, what guarantees can she offer us against the reading of perverse meanings into this undue licence in the drafting by her successors? No government are in power for ever and governments do not know who will succeed them. Is it really wise to give such an extreme latitude of drafting to we know not who? It is on that second point that I shall listen to the Minister's reply with the greatest care. I do not think that this is a good way to draft legislation. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall give the noble Earl a fairly brief answer and then see if he is satisfied. If he is not, perhaps he can then encourage me to expand on my response. Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the regulation making powers that allow the Secretary of State to adapt the percentages and amounts used to set the maintenance rates and to revise the number of nights and fractions used in determining the reduction in the amount of maintenance to be paid where care of a child is shared.
	We obviously believe that we have got it right. I could explain why and tell the noble Earl what the evidence is from overseas, but I should like to get to his basic point. We are concerned that the rates and amounts that form the core of the new scheme should not be subjected to unnecessary modification. The intention to provide regulation-making powers is simply intended as a safeguard to ensure that the Secretary of State can respond quickly should the rates and amounts provided in the Bill prove not to be appropriate in reflecting changes in the lives of children and parents.
	This is the usual situation where one tries to avoid putting precise numbers on the face of a Bill because one may, in the light of experience, need to change them. It is more straightforward to do this by regulations than by any other method. If it would help the noble Earl, I should be very happy to try to give assurances about how those regulation-making powers might operate so that they are properly accountable to Parliament. However, when talking about benefits, it is fairly conventional to allow fractions and percentages to be determined by regulations to allow them to be adapted if needs be.
	I do not particularly envisage such a situation, although I could conceive of one happening if, in the light of experience, it was found necessary to change the amounts. I do not know whether that has helped the noble Earl, but it is a fairly conventional way in social security legislation of allowing us to change percentages with proper parliamentary scrutiny--that is, by way of regulation--without the need to go for primary legislation. I am not sure whether the noble Earl requires a larger response, but that is why we are doing it in this way.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for her reply. As I expected, I have no great objection to her present intention under the schedule. I thought it was not intended to do anything particularly iniquitous and I understand why she wishes to do it in this way. However, before we leave the matter, I should like the noble Baroness to pay attention to the more general scope of my question; namely, what is the extreme limit of what could be done under these powers? I do not mean what could be done by the Minister, I mean by someone else.
	If we put such powers into primary legislation, what use can be made of them? We are giving someone a ticket to travel under this legislation, and I should like to know where that ticket can take them. At the same time, I want to know whether the same effect--I do not oppose the Minister's desire to achieve it--could possibly be produced out of a slightly less open-ended wording. This is getting quite close to the proposition that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes. It is not really our job to give quite such a carte blanche. Therefore, as the Minister has a perfectly reasonable specific intention, would it be possible to spell it out in a rather tighter way and not leave it quite as open ended as it is at present? I believe that this point is worth referring to parliamentary counsel for future consideration because, as the Minister said, other things are drafted in this way. I really do not think that they should be.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like, first, to point out that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was satisfied that regulations were appropriate in this field, so that has been a considered judgment. The noble Earl seems to be saying that all secondary legislation forms part of the works of the devil and that, therefore, we should avoid it. Like me, he knows that this Chamber, the Moses Room and every committee room would be sitting both night and day in order to get through legislation if every change had to be done by primary and not secondary legislation. Given the fact that something like 3,000 or so separate statutory instruments come here each year, including social security legislation, I do not believe that the noble Earl would like to be here to examine all of them as primary legislation. There is a basic point here about the utility of secondary legislation. As I said, this has been approved by the scrutiny committee.
	Secondly, I do not see why the noble Earl should think that there will not be proper parliamentary scrutiny because these are affirmative regulations. As a result, they will have to come before the noble Earl if he is so minded to discuss them in the usual way. No one is trying to duck or conceal.
	Thirdly, the noble Earl asked me what would be the most extreme position in which such powers could be used. I suppose if one said that 100 per cent of someone's income was to be used as maintenance, that would be the limit. I could hardly conceive of 110 per cent of someone's income being used in that way. Clearly one could change those percentages of 15, 20 or 25 per cent, and so on.
	I am inventing my next example and I shall probably be advised that it is not a good example at all. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is continually telling me that there is really no difference between taxation and national insurance, for example, and that they form a continuum. In that case I could conceive that one might have a different version of gross income, even though here we are dealing with net income. If there were some changes in pensions treatment, for example, it might be right and equitable to re-evaluate what counts as net income for the purposes of the percentages we are discussing. I could conceive of that possibility. I have no reason to think that it is at all likely but, realistically, it is not impossible. In that situation one would wish to discuss that in the Chamber to ensure that the spirit of what we intend is preserved if taxation law, national insurance law or pensions law were to be changed. That seems to me at least a feasible possibility. Given that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of affirmative resolutions, I do not think that the noble Earl need have anything to worry about.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. She has got into rather a habit this evening of putting words into my mouth. I was not arguing in this amendment the case for primary versus secondary legislation. I had specifically conceded the appropriateness of secondary legislation in this instance and I think that the record will show that. What I was trying to suggest was that the vires which confer the power to make secondary legislation might be rather more tightly drafted. That is a point which I leave with the Committee. I shall not ask the Minister to reply to it again.
	I have another point that I have mentioned to the Minister about 100 times; I hope that this is the last time I have to say it. It is no good offering me scrutiny because the power of scrutiny is useless without the power of control. However, I shall not say that again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Applications under section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35. I also wish to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
	This is an important part of the proceedings of the Bill. It was debated at great length in another place. The Minister will know that we have all been much lobbied on this subject from a number of different organisations. Therefore we feel that it is important to debate the matter fully this evening.
	The current CSA legislation confirms that where parents are able to reach agreement on the level of maintenance for their children they may do so and they may also incorporate that agreement into a court order. If they do this, no CSA assessment can be made and the level of child maintenance to be paid will be covered by their agreement. In practice this is a valuable and greatly used provision. It enables parents to negotiate and agree their own arrangements without having to resort to the CSA. This benefits both the parents and children concerned and relieves the workload of an overstretched CSA.
	Clause 2 of the Bill effectively removes this ability by stating that once it comes into force, even if parents are able to agree their arrangements and have them incorporated into an order, after just one year either parent may renege on that agreement and instead apply to the CSA. That will effectively bring an end to parental discussion and negotiation as any agreement that may be reached will be capable of being overturned at the end of a year by either parent who believes that he or she can do better through the CSA.
	That approach is totally contrary to developments both in Europe and in this country on matters relating to children and finances generally. The overwhelming trend is towards encouraging parents to discuss and negotiate their own arrangements. This enables and encourages parents to act responsibly and realistically gives them the opportunity to tailor workable solutions to their particular financial circumstances. This ability is beneficial to all concerned and often helps reduce the resentment and acrimony caused by the imposition of outside "solutions". Indeed, the belief that there are benefits to parents in being able to agree their own arrangements underpins the Government's support and development of mediation in family matters.
	There are numerous circumstances where parents want to opt out of the CSA. The three basic alternatives are as follows. First, parents reach agreement similar to what the CSA would have assessed but wish to avoid having to go through the CSA procedure. Secondly, parents agree that payments for the children will be greater than the CSA would assess. The most common reason for this circumstance is likely to be in return for a trade off. For example, the mother will agree to make no maintenance claims for herself--this is often referred to as a "clean break"--in return for a better level of maintenance for the children. This can have benefits all round. The non-resident father is happier to pay the money because it is deemed to be going to the children and gives a definite length to the maintenance obligation. The mother in turn no longer has to concern herself about forming new relationships and the effect that that has on the maintenance. Thirdly, parents may agree to a lesser sum than the CSA. Again, this will often result from financial trade offs.
	For example, the non-resident parent may transfer capital or the house to enable the mother and child to remain housed, with the mother accepting in return a lesser level of maintenance for the children. The scope for this kind of settlement is likely to increase under the new CSA where the residential parent's income is no longer taken into account. One could have situations where the residential parent works and has sufficient income but there is a need for capital to secure accommodation for the children.
	To benefit from this exemption the parents need to have their agreements approved by the courts. This provides an important protection against a parent being pressurised into unsuitable agreements, while at the same time it provides a straightforward and established procedure. It is a procedure that is frequently used when parents are divorcing and have been able to reach agreement on financial aspects generally as it enables them to ask the court to confirm the terms of an overall settlement that may well include spousal maintenance and capital at the same time as child maintenance.
	One cannot see any benefits to this clause, which effectively states that after one year either parent may call upon the state to intervene and override agreements that they have reached, even if that agreement has been reached after full advice and after a court has approved the terms. On the other hand, one can see many benefits in allowing the current situation to continue which enables separating parents to agree their own financial situation.
	We are here to improve the CSA. We are asking: why burden it with more work than it can cope with? We should also remember that, in contrast to the CSA--which we all agree is currently failing too many children--the courts in general enjoy a wealth of experience and expertise and are normally very effective in dealing with more complex cases.
	I believe that it is important to review what the Select Committee had to say on the matter. It stated:
	"We are concerned that the CSA formula may be invoked to overturn settlements agreed to in court. It would be preferable if settlements reached in court paid attention to the CSA formula from the outset.
	"We recommend that further research be carried out into the extent to which the interests of the children concerned would be adversely affected by allowing parties to 'private' agreements to have recourse to the rough justice of the ... new formula".
	The Minister informed the Select Committee that the justice system is not always uniform. We fear that this shows a clear bias towards conformity and administrative convenience.
	Our amendments and proposed new clauses deal with three principal concerns. First, that the CSA will be swamped with cases as a result of the clause and it will not be able to cope. Secondly, private arrangements will not be reached as easily as they were in the past. The court system will not be able to cope with the greater volume of litigation. The third and most important point is that the amendments and new clauses would allow the courts to provide a disbursement of assets in the best interests of the child. Without the new clauses, we fear that the deal offered to the children will be lessened.
	On a final note, perhaps I may add in relation to the debate earlier on the upper limits in Clause 1, that the numbers affected by this will radically increase if Clause 2 becomes law. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 2 and this group of amendments all relate to the relative jurisdictions of the Child Support Agency and the courts in matters of child maintenance. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has spelt out very clearly and lucidly where the concerns of the Opposition Bench lie.
	As noble Lords will recall, a central feature of the child support scheme introduced by the party opposite was a deliberate move away from having questions of child maintenance settled by lawyers and the courts. Provisions in the Child Support Act 1991, which we supported, provided a straightforward administrative mechanism for setting levels of child maintenance and, where required, for collecting maintenance payments on behalf of the children concerned.
	The legislation introduced by the Conservative government clearly envisaged a time when all child support matters were settled by the agency. It was intended that during a transitional period only--a period expected to last for some three years--the courts would be able to vary existing court orders for child maintenance and to make new orders based on agreements between the parents concerned. During this period, parents who had such maintenance arrangements would be prevented from coming to the agency for a maintenance assessment unless benefit was claimed for the children. In other words, it was expected to be a transitional period only. Thereafter the CSA writ would run and there would be only one assessment of child maintenance--that made by the agency and given in any court settlement. That was the previous government's proposal. It went far beyond anything that we are proposing.
	Unfortunately, the Conservatives found that their child support scheme was not working as well as they had hoped. So, in 1995, they deferred the take on of court cases indefinitely. Nevertheless, they were careful to take a delegated power that would enable the agency to take over such cases in the future.
	We have given a high priority to reforming the child support scheme to make it work effectively for children and their parents. Our initial view, as set out in the Green Paper, echoed that of the Conservative Government's position--that there was no role for the courts in a reformed child support scheme, for all the reasons which persuaded us that the Conservative's policy in this area was correct at the time of the Act. We expected to tread the path of the previous administration. However, in the course of consultation, we listened to the views of lawyers, judges, barristers, family solicitors and others, who often had very different views on this matter--there is not a single lawyers' view--and they saw a continuing need for court jurisdiction in this area, for the reasons spelt out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
	Some sought, as does the noble Baroness in moving the amendment, to give more power to the courts. We were encouraged to consider taking powers to require the courts to operate the child support rates, although retaining a power to depart from those rates if the court saw fit. We listened to the advice of a broad range of people within the law, including judges, lawyers, solicitors, barristers, court welfare officers, magistrates' clerks and the like. They had very different views but some would have called on us to, so to speak, impose the CSA settlement on the courts.
	We concluded that neither that extreme nor the total removal of court jurisdiction was entirely satisfactory. One extreme was to let the courts have an entirely separate jurisdiction, which is what the noble Baroness seemed to be proposing, and the other was to allow the courts no jurisdiction whatever by imposing the CSA settlement. We thought that neither of those paths was appropriate. Removing all power from the courts to set child maintenance would deny the parents the right to agree to depart from the child support rates where benefit is not involved and have that agreement registered in court, perhaps along with other financial arrangements. The other extreme, requiring the courts to apply a simple system of rates, appeared to conflict with judicial independence, which is at the heart of the court process, and it was not clear in practice that the courts would be able to resist varying the rates in a wide range of circumstances.
	We did not wish to follow either extreme position--to impose CSA rates on the courts, though possibly with some flexibility, or to place child maintenance entirely at the discretion of the courts where there were private cases, partly because we feared reproducing the inequities and lottery which the CSA in 1991 was designed to overcome. We are proposing a third way. We believe that it is more flexible and that it shares the values, which the noble Baroness offered, of mediation and negotiation while preventing abuse of that system. Very simply, no private cases need ever come to the CSA. That includes WFTC cases. Therefore, around 55 per cent of all cases would potentially be private cases and need never come to the CSA. Only those cases where the parent with care is on a prescribed benefit--normally, income support--would come to the CSA. Very many of those cases will not go to the courts because people are not getting divorced or, if they are getting divorced, no substantial property is involved and therefore there is not a question of the courts adjusting child support against spousal maintenance and the like. However, if the private case, which is a court case, comes to the CSA, it will do so only because those involved are seriously dissatisfied with court arrangements.
	When will that happen? It will happen if either side feel themselves pressured at the point of making that settlement into too high or too low a settlement compared with the benchmark of the Child Support Agency's figures, which are now widely known by all lawyers. They could come to the CSA only after 12 months--we are not suggesting that this would be knee-jerk--and even then, to encourage negotiation and mediation, which is what we want, they have to give the other side two months' notice to allow opportunity for further negotiation and mediation.
	Either side will come to the CSA possibly because he or she is dissatisfied and feels pressured at the time or alternatively if payments that are supposed to be made are not being made reliably and possibly the parent with care does not want to keep revisiting the courts to obtain the money but prefers to put the matter into the hands of the Child Support Agency.
	What is the consequence of saying that either party may come to the CSA if he or she is aggrieved about the settlement figure or about its effective collection? I suggest that the consequence will be that, because the lawyers on both sides know that an aggrieved client could come to the CSA, if he or she departs very far from the CSA benchmark, and have CSA rates imposed, those same lawyers will strongly encourage their clients to settle at the CSA rate. In other words, they will fix court maintenance in the shadow of the CSA. We shall not impose it on them, but we expect lawyers to give advice to clients that this is in their best interest.
	However, the important point is that this arrangement still leaves all parties free when they wish to go above or below that child support figure. For example, a father might wish to go above the CSA figure because there is a disabled child and he feels it right that he should provide more; or he may feel, and she may agree, that it is reasonable for him to go below the CSA figure because he is picking up boarding school fees, including tuition fees, as well as maintenance.
	If all agree, that is fine. By having that element of flexibility but nonetheless expecting lawyers to advise their clients to stay at the CSA benchmark figure unless there are good grounds, by consent, to go above or below it, it still allows other elements in the settlement referred to by the noble Baroness--for example, spousal maintenance, pensions, property, investments and so on--to be tailored to the particular financial circumstances of that family. There are many elements in the settlement of the kinds of couples referred to by the noble Baroness which can take the strain of discretionary judgment while the CSA figure remains the benchmark figure for child maintenance and child support.
	The reason why it is important that there should be a common rate between the CSA and the courts--in other words, the same figure--is that so many parents with care come back on to benefits. To put the problem into perspective, we have a caseload of about 1.2 million, about half of whom will be private clients. Each quarter, around 100,000 lone parents move on to or off income support. That represents 10 per cent of the entire lone parent caseload. Even prosperous families can find that they need income support to see them through a financial crisis. So it is simply impossible to tell whether at some point in the future the subject has gone through a court process--for example, a business may have failed, she may have become self-employed and that employment has collapsed and she has had to go back on to benefit.
	That is why we have decided, following extensive advice and consultation, not to go for either of the two extremes: to impose a CSA settlement on the courts willy-nilly or alternatively to let the courts do willy-nilly what they think fit. Instead, we have decided that the courts may make and vary child maintenance orders, but because there is the fallback of coming to the CSA if there is an aggrieved client, they will do so in the shadow of the CSA rates. If the agreement breaks down, the ability of either parent to come to the CSA will be an important guarantee that children will receive proper levels of maintenance.
	This provision is not retrospective, which was one of the problems of the 1991 Act. It will apply only to new cases. Clause 2 gives effect to our policy in this area and makes changes to the child support scheme so that more separated parents can apply for child support. It will allow parents who have a court order for maintenance which has been placed for a year to apply to the CSA for child support calculation instead. But as I said, it also protects private clients with existing court orders.
	Parents with maintenance orders in force at the time that the reforms are introduced and those with written maintenance agreements made before April 1993 will, as now, use the courts for enforcement and variation of child maintenance liability. Current arrangements whereby a parent with care on benefit can have an existing court order overturned by a child support assessment will remain unchanged. This will ensure that a two-tier system between the courts and the CSA does not develop. We expect that this will encourage courts to make consent orders in the shadow of the simple and predictable child support rates, because either parent has the option of turning to the CSA after one year and giving two months' notice for further negotiation or mediation, if that is appropriate. We have a one-year waiting period and a two-month cooling-off period.
	I hope that, with that explanation on clause stand part, the noble Baroness understands what we seek to do. We seek to avoid two extremes so that where there is consent private arrangements will, as now, continue with good grace and negotiation or mediation. This is, as it were, a default rate. Either party and his or her lawyers will be aware that the other can come back if there is dissatisfaction. As a result, there is a fixed element in what may otherwise be a somewhat more complicated package. We believe that this is the most decent means to ensure that there is reliable maintenance at a consistent level without introducing a two-tier system, while encouraging mediation, negotiation and individually determined private arrangements.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 which seek to amend Clause 2. I am a little surprised that the Conservative Members of the Committee have tabled these amendments. While I am sure that they are probing amendments, I believe that they will increase uncertainty. It is true that Amendment No. 35 seeks to address one problem that has bedevilled court maintenance in the past: the risk that children will suffer because parents with care are forced to accept lower maintenance under duress. There is an amendment to that effect. I worry about this. I do not see how the CSA can decide whether a parent with care is under duress except on the word of the parent in question. I do not see how the CSA can decide that a court proceeding has taken place under duress. The CSA can properly decide the appropriate maintenance rate given the number of children and the income, but it should not be concerned with concepts of duress and improper influence during a court procedure to which it has not been a party. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, which I believe to be an honourable one, but I believe that this is a dangerous road to follow. I do not see how we can do it.
	Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 would, if accepted, give back to the courts the power to set levels of child maintenance in any case where they made other financial arrangements. I hope I have made the point that those other arrangements, such as property or spousal maintenance, can take the strain. These amendments are inconsistent with what we seek to do.
	I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees that we have tried to bring together the need to recognise the discretion involved in private arrangements and not undermine the role of lawyers in trying to look after the best interests of the parties and the children, without at the same time deserting what may be the best interests of children by putting in the floor of the child support rate which both parties know is the fall-back if either is dissatisfied. Essentially, we are setting up a Mexican stand-off (if I may call it that) based on the rate of child support, in the knowledge that the other elements in the formula--spousal maintenance, property, pensions and the like--can take the strain of discretionary ones. We believe that, broadly speaking, under this arrangement there is a common standard of maintenance right across all child support cases, the CSA and courts alike, but where both parties in private cases have good reason to go above or below it, and agree that it is in their best interests and those of the child to do so, the CSA will not stand in their way.
	I hope that with that slightly long explanation of what we seek to do--I thought it important to put it on record--the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment and endorse what we seek to do. We believe that in this very difficult situation, in which principles pull in different directions, we have found a way through. While the solution is perhaps slightly subtle, we hope that it will deliver what we all want: regular maintenance based, where possible, on private arrangements reached by consent and mediation. I hope that, in the light of that, the noble Baroness feels able to accept that what we seek to do is decent and withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister has given a long and clear explanation of the Government's thinking on this matter. The noble Baroness has said that the long-term objective is that gradually what the courts do approximates to what the CSA is doing. My noble friend was concerned about the load on the CSA in the shorter term. Have the Government any estimate of the number of cases that might come to the CSA to overturn arrangements made in the courts in the first few years? On a practical basis, can the Minister give any figure?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In my reply I overlooked that perfectly proper point.
	In 1998 the courts made around 8,000 court orders in respect of children. The CSA handled around 350,000 new maintenance applications. The caseload builds up. Of that 8,000 I would expect only a tiny fraction to wish to come to the CSA except--and only except--in those cases where the parent with care has subsequently gone on to benefit in which case they must do so. The CSA handled 350,000 cases compared with 8,000 handled by the courts. The noble Baroness's guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a few hundred, perhaps 10 per cent, of those may have to come back to the CSA because the parent with care will go on to benefit. Of the remainder, the noble Baroness's guess is as good as mine on the default rate coming back to the CSA.
	Because of the way the system will be set up, I hope that we have overcome the problem. Lawyers would know that they cannot depart from the CSA rate without the full and informed consent of both parties and would build into their arrangements at the court the CSA rate. If we are successful, then very few cases should come before us.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for the full and clear explanation of Clause 2. We shall consider it fully and carefully between now and Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Applications by persons claiming or receiving benefit]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or any other benefit of a prescribed kind").

Lord Higgins: This amendment is similar to one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We think that the wording at line 13 of Clause 3 is somewhat comprehensive. It states:
	"This section applies where income support, an income-based jobseeker's allowance"--
	I include the words the amendments would omit--
	"or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is claimed by or in respect of, or paid to or in respect of, the parent of a qualifying child".
	The phrase,
	"or any other benefit of a prescribed kind",
	seems extremely broad. It would be helpful to know what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask two precise and short questions. First, could child benefit be a prescribed benefit under this clause? Secondly, could the old age pension be a prescribed benefit under this clause?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 40 amends Clause 3 of the Bill so that only people claiming income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance can be treated as having applied for child support.
	At present, Clause 3 provides that people in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, or any prescribed benefit, will be treated as applying for child support. The amendment removes the regulation-making power and would mean that should the need arise it would be more difficult to add other benefits in the future.
	Under the current scheme, a parent with care who claims income support or income-based JSA can be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child maintenance. She is not required to do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there will be a risk of her, or any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress. This is known as "good cause". However, child support arrangements can be made only after a formal application for maintenance has been received and no parent with care can be made to apply. Even if good cause is not accepted, the parent with care can choose simply not to respond.
	Under the new scheme, parents with care who make a claim for IS or income-based JSA will be treated as having applied for child support unless they specifically request that child support should not be pursued.
	The noble Earl asked whether the fact that someone was receiving benefit could amount to a sufficient definition. No, because someone could have child benefit and be a private case and therefore not fall within the framework of the Bill. As regards someone in receipt of a retirement pension, I suppose one could conceive of a pensioner having children of the appropriate age. I am not saying that it is not possible, but it seems fairly unlikely. It would be hard to imagine because the child would have had to be conceived after the age of 50. It seems unlikely, but I suppose that it could be possible.
	As with the current scheme, there is a power to prescribe benefits other than income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance. In the past, DWA was prescribed, but as it has now been replaced by the disabled person's tax credit it no longer applies.
	This amendment would mean that we would no longer have the power to prescribe benefits other than income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. As explained in the memorandum on delegated powers, while we do not intend at the current time to include other benefits, it is desirable that we retain the power to be able to add others, as is currently the case, or, given changes that could be envisaged, to alter existing benefit proposals.
	That would give us the flexibility to replace or add to the benefits set out on the face of the Bill should a new benefit be introduced to which parents with care may be eligible in future. It is only right that if these circumstances arise, all parents with care should be treated in the same way. It will also enable other existing benefits to be added should it be necessary.
	Delegated powers are a feature of social security legislation. For example, Section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides for entitlement to ICA to be linked to care of a person receiving attendance allowance, DLA or such other payment out of public funds as may be prescribed.
	It is normal for any new benefits to be introduced by primary legislation. That would mean that if we wanted to add new benefits to Clause 3 we could do so by this route at the same time. In theory, child benefit could be prescribed but we have no plans to do so. Old age pension is not regarded as a benefit and could not come within the framework of the Bill even if by changes in fertility treatment and the like someone is a pensioner and also the parent of a dependent child.
	Delegated powers serve a number of functions. We set these out to the committee which scrutinises these matters and it accepted the need for such powers. The delegated powers in Clause 3 will allow the child support scheme to be adapted to address the benefits system as it evolves to reflect the lives of parents and children. I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it would be an affirmative resolution. I hope that in the light of that explanation he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. She was perhaps a little dismissive of the implication of the old age pension. Perhaps I may remind her that, first, a man can be a parent with care and, secondly, that my father was 65 when I was born.
	I was interested in what she said about it being possible for child benefit to become a benefit of a prescribed kind and I accept that she has no plans to do so. But should some future government want to extend the system to non-benefit cases, this would be an easy way of doing so.
	Would it meet the Government's intention if instead of saying,
	"any other benefit of a prescribed kind",
	they said,
	"any other means-tested benefit of a prescribed kind"?
	Would that addition cost the Government anything and, if not, why not do it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may reflect on that. The reason that I hesitated about means testing is because of payments such as WFTC; that is, payments that were benefits when they were family credit and are still income-related but not part of the benefit system as we envisage it--in other words, private cases. That is why I should like to reflect on what the noble Earl said.
	With regard to the point about pensions: yes, mea culpa. Of course I should have realised that, unlike women, men's fertility may continue for very much longer and, indeed, men may continue to be parents with care. Therefore, I stand corrected on that point. The noble Earl is absolutely right. One wishes that his father had had even more children after the age of 65 to add to the inherited talent and meritocracy of this country.

Lord Higgins: Even at this late hour, it is perhaps tempting to enter into a discussion of the many talents of the noble Earl's father. However, perhaps it is as well not to do so at this stage.
	The description which I believe the noble Baroness was seeking in relation to the probability of this event was, "it did not happen very frequently". I believe that that is what she should have said. However, I shall leave that on one side. I suspect that it is also rather late to have an overall discussion on the question of delegated legislation. However, the figure that she quoted earlier with regard to the number of statutory instruments, and so on, which are now coming forward is pretty frightening.
	It has always seemed to me--it is a personal view--that if such a power is taken it is advisable that as much as possible should be put on the face of the Bill, even though subsequently it can be amended by order. The real problem with regard to delegated legislation is that it is not subsequently amendable. It is there on a take it or leave it basis. Therefore, if a particular item is to be considered in that context, I believe that it is always advisable that it should be on the face of the Bill, that we should have an initial crack at it and, in some cases, it should also be adjusted in a way which is open to amendment.
	The noble Baroness has been very clear on that particular point. Subject only to denying the words that she put into my mouth about half-an-hour ago in relation to taxation and social security contributions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 3, line 16, at end insert--
	("( ) All such claims shall be accompanied by identification documentation as follows--
	(a) a Department of Social Security smart card,
	(b) a current driving licence,
	(c) a current United Kingdom passport, or
	(d) a Department of Social Security payment book.").

Baroness Byford: This amendment concerns the payment of benefits. I have specifically made four suggestions. As the noble Baroness knows very well, I have raised the matter in this House on many occasions. As, indeed, are many others, I am somewhat concerned about the way in which we are to change our benefit payments. It will not be by compulsion. As the noble Baroness said to me earlier today, people will still be able to choose to receive their payments through the Post Office system if they so wish.
	It may be that I am raising this matter in the wrong section. My noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise a similar issue with regard to benefit payments later in our discussions. However, I felt that we should have an opportunity to raise the matter at this point, and that is why I tabled the amendment.
	I accept that the installation of ACT will bring, as the Government say, many benefits. However, at the moment some 2 million people are without bank accounts. For many, that decision has been made twice: first, probably because they are unbankable; and, secondly, because they choose to remain unbanked. It seems extraordinary to those of us who have bank accounts (it would seem strange to us not to have them) to imagine why people so choose; but choose they certainly do.
	I tabled the amendment to try to find out from the Minister exactly how the Government expect people will identify themselves. At the moment they do so either through GIRO or through the payment book. If social security payment books are to cease, which I understand they are, one must still have some form of identification. There have been rumours that that may take the form of a smart card. If so, that is fine but at least we should like to know.
	I have raised this issue on the post office Bill and in debates that we have had on other issues. We have been told that we are waiting for the PIU report which was due to be published after Easter. Easter has now gone. It then slipped from Easter to May and then from May to the summer. I am worried that it will slip from us completely and we shall not have the report before the Bill passes through both Houses. That would be a great mistake. I have some figures for March from the CAB which states that nine out of 10 income support claimants do not choose to be paid by ACT. I know that there are new claimants who the Minister will tell me prefer to be paid in that way.
	There are two problems. The first is the question of individuals having reasonable access to the payments at a time that suits them. Secondly, some people do not wish to have bank accounts for various reasons.
	Some of the payments are absolutely essential. Where families have broken up, there is often a joint account. Couples do not always have individual bank accounts. In those circumstances, the caring parent, usually the woman, may find that the account has become overdrawn and therefore will not have access to those essential benefits in the way that she has now. Of course, at present she can go to the post office, as most claimants choose to do. Therefore, it is extremely important that we consider the matter today, although I know we shall debate it again later at greater length.
	The other side of the coin is that at the moment the payments are made through the sub-post office system. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will be aware of the extreme pressure that there has been on sub-post offices and of the major rally which took place three weeks ago. The Committee will be aware of the 3,128,000 plus people who signed the petition to express their concern about the future of post offices. That is because 40 per cent of the income that goes to post offices is derived from the handling of welfare payments by sub-postmasters and mistresses.
	The closure of banks, whether they be rural or urban, has exacerbated the problem. I noticed in the Telegraph today an article about the fact that the loss of banks adds millions of miles to village travel. So there are the additional factors of travel, pollution and cost.
	If one is looking at the social side, one will know that the local post office does more than merely provide payments for claimants. It is the heart of the community, whether it is a rural or urban sub-post office. Along with, I suspect, many other people, I have been extremely concerned over the past three weeks about what is to happen. The Government changed their minds about the original plans which my party had put in place and have scrapped some of those. But there is a big question mark over the whole issue. Perhaps the Minister will provide further clarification on this issue rather than merely saying that we must wait for the PIU report.
	I understand that if a social bank is established, it may have 2 million clients. Who will cover the costs of that? Recently we were told that the cost of transfer will be only 1p. But I am sure that it will cost more than 1p to provide banking facilities for 1 million people who have no assets. Are the Government expecting the existing banks to cover the cost of that or are they going to put money towards it to make sure that it is possible for it to happen? At present, there are too many questions left unanswered. If we do not put down one or two markers as the Bill goes through the House, in my humble opinion we shall be in the unenviable position of passing legislation without having real regard to the nub of the whole issue, which is payment to those whom the Government are trying to help.
	When moving his amendment earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke clearly of the importance of people. We are talking about people and about payments and keeping them simple and accessible. At the moment all we have is theory and "possibles" which, with my amendment, I have tried to flush out. As I believe the noble Baroness accepts, this is a probing amendment. Perhaps she will clarify the position for us. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: The noble Baroness and I have co-operated before on the issue of post offices. I look forward to doing so again. The matter is raised in Amendments Nos. 180 and 181, on which I shall have a good deal more to say, including mentioning some of the reasons why people on benefit are not satisfied with the services they receive from banks. I believe that we shall speak with one voice, as we have done before.
	Amendment No. 41 concerns verification of those who wish to claim benefit. The Minister and I have had exchanges on this subject since 1998 and she can probably foresee what I am about to say. Here we have a clash of right and right. The desire to know that the people to whom benefits are paid are the right people is a good, proper and necessary one. At the same time, the need of those who have suffered a sudden emergency to be able to eat that evening is a real and pressing need. When the needs of verification conflict with the needs of real hunger, we need to think again.
	Recently, I was in conversation with a CAB bureau manager who, I am sure, would prefer to remain unattributable. Without any questioning, he introduced the subject of verification as one that causes problems within the area of his bureau simply because the process of verification takes a considerable time. People cannot instantly lay their hands on the necessary documents; many people leave home; some may not have access to documents; sometimes the documents are destroyed in a burglary or a fire. While they wait for verification to be completed they have no benefit and no income; they run up debts; fall into arrears with their rent; face the risk of eviction; and probably end up going to loan sharks.
	In that situation the problem of verification is not a simple one. Maybe we need a procedure for paying benefits to people on an interim basis pending verification. One would have to put a time limit on that. That need particularly applies to women who are victims of domestic violence who, of course, often have to leave home in a great hurry and do not have time to pick up bank cards, birth certificates and so on. It also applies to children who have been thrown out by their parents--noble Lords may remember the Children's Society report of last January--which is more common than one would believe. Usually, their documents are in the hands of their parents. They cannot appeal for them without revealing their whereabouts, which is something they do not always want to do.
	If the Minister will consider the possibility of an interim payment of benefit on a short-term basis, pending the completion of verification, she may possibly be in a position to save a good deal of hardship. I do not know whether she believes that that manages to reconcile right with right. It is something that needs doing. On the spur of the moment I cannot think of a better way of doing it. On the issue of post offices, we shall return to fight again another day and we shall fight hard.

Lord Higgins: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Byford who has put forward what can best be described as a trailer for a future major event as regards discussions on the Post Office. My noble friend has put forward most forcefully the arguments in favour of having a form of identification. That being so, I think it is appropriate to consider the proposals that she has made in her amendment. In that context, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say in reply.
	Perhaps I may say briefly that the Minister and I have had a number of exchanges on this issue. It seems rather difficult to put over the point that concerns us; namely, that it is the method of payments through the post office which is so widely regarded by people throughout the country. We shall need to return to that matter in the light not only of the Minister's reply this evening, but also in the subsequent debate to which the noble Earl has rightly drawn attention.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have heard two maxi-speeches and one mini-speech, none of which has been addressed directly to the amendment before the Committee. The amendment concerns verification, but the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has instead used it as a peg to put forward a trailer for a wider debate on the role of post offices. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has used it as a peg to raise issues concerned with the need for speedy access to funds where there is no obvious identification. Both of those are interesting issues, but not the ones identified on the Marshalled List.

Earl Russell: I believe that my remarks did address themselves to the matter of verification.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I agree that the whole debate concerns verification. Amendment No. 41 seeks to require those who claim certain benefits to produce specific evidence of their identity. We support the intention behind the amendment; namely, that barriers are put in the way of those who attempt to make claims under false names.
	However, I would draw the attention of noble Lords to Section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act which already requires claimants to produce information or evidence to establish their identity. However, unlike this amendment, Section 1 does not specify which evidence the person must produce. They may produce evidence from a wide range of documents: birth certificates, passports, foreign identity cards or driving licences. Such documents are examined critically to ensure that they are genuine. For example, if it is thought to be necessary, birth certificates are checked against missing certificates and ultraviolet scanners are used to ensure that they are not fraudulent.
	The noble Baroness's amendment proposes that a list of acceptable documentation is placed in legislation. However, I suggest that there are difficulties with all of her suggestions. This may be better left to the looser arrangements--if I may put it that way--that the DSS currently has in place.
	The noble Baroness first asks for the production of a smart card. There is no such card. The noble Baroness may be referring to the payment card which has now been withdrawn from use, so that would not work. Secondly, as regards a driving licence, it must be remembered that many people in this country--in particular women, those whose eyesight is impaired or those whose age prevents them from driving--do not hold a driving licence.
	Thirdly, as regards the requirement to produce a UK passport, a number of people have chosen to live in this country but hold a passport issued by another country, or they may not be eligible to hold a UK passport. Finally, if a person is making a claim to benefit, they would not have in their possession a payment book. While many of the people concerned may have a child benefit book they could produce, again we cannot assume that all parents will have one in their possession.
	For those reasons, we are reluctant to include a specific list. Instead, we interview claimants to establish their history and background. This information is checked against a range of other sources, including DSS records and those held by third parties. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the current powers provided by the Social Security Administration Act are sufficient to meet the purpose in this area. However, I should point out that Clause 3 does not deal with claims to benefit; it deals with applications for maintenance calculations.
	Perhaps I may return to the wider issue that was raised. The noble Baroness was specific that she was using this as a peg to hold an early debate on post office payments. Her noble friend Lord Higgins has happily joined in the discussion, thus repeating an exchange we had during an Unstarred Question a little while ago. I am willing to follow this up through correspondence or in any other way acceptable to the noble Baroness. However, perhaps I may make one or two basic points.
	The noble Baroness is right to say that the PIU report has slipped. We expect it to appear in late summer, rather than late May or early June as we originally thought. It will be between 2003 and 2005 before the ACT proposals are firmly and finally in place. Many of the details she asked about will be explored and discussed with Post Office Counters Ltd and sub-postmasters over the next few years.
	There are many myths circulating. Every year, partly as a consequence of choice, or death, 500,000 people stop using post offices. Post office closures in urban and rural areas have been accelerating in recent years, well in advance of any proposals to change methods of payment. Given what is happening in finance and IT, if Post Office Counters does not enter the 21st century, it will find itself with a shrinking customer base. The question is how post offices will turn a potential threat into an opportunity, as major clearing banks close their outlets in rural areas, cutting the number of branches from 2,000 to 1,500 or fewer. The Post Office is in a position to exploit that opportunity.
	The Post Office already acts as a proxy bank for LloydsTSB, Alliance & Leicester, Co-operative and Barclays and continues to negotiate with others. POCL is also developing--we hope to see this exploited in the PIU report--a universal bank, to make good the shortfall of individuals who are not currently in the system. Some 20 per cent of the population do not have access to banking services but rely on pawnbrokers, cheque changers, mail order catalogues offering goods at high interest rates and so on. Such people are excluded from the benefits of paying bills by direct debit and enjoying reductions. They have to go to friends to write cheques on their behalf. It is difficult for them to manage their lives that way. It will be to their advantage to enter the banking system. We have to ensure that the Post Office is in a position to help them. They should be able to draw their benefits and the sums of money that they want without additional cost, while ensuring security against fraud.
	The more we explore the possibilities, the more I hope the noble Baroness will be persuaded that the threat, as perceived by sub-postmasters, is not just an opportunity but a lifeline. Without it, many sub-postmasters will be on the skids. Their lifeline will be offering financial services to the substantial number of people who are currently excluded from banking and who should enjoy the mainstream of financial services that the rest of us take for granted. I hope the noble Baroness accepts my assurance that we will be able to do something important, not just for rural communities and sub-postmasters but for those who are at the edges of financial society.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about delays caused to a battered wife, for example, in protecting against fraud. The obvious point of call is a Social Fund crisis loan which has been devised to provide bridging and emergency money until an individual's financial situation can be regularised.
	Given, as I say, that the main input was to discuss post offices--the noble Earl perfectly properly asked questions about people who had no documentation--I hope that in the light of my explanation on that and on the detailed points raised by the noble Baroness, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for her full response. As I said in my opening remarks, this was a probing amendment, particularly in relation to identification.
	I do not fully accept the Minister's explanation. I was not talking about a lifeline to post offices; I was discussing the importance of easy access for people who need to obtain their benefit payments. If there are no banks in the community, they need somewhere to collect them and at the moment the most common feature is the post office.
	Perhaps I might add that in the discussions I had with sub-postmasters I did not find them negative. They are looking to understand what the Government's intentions are so that they can plan and invest in the future. At the moment that is still not clearly defined. We have been told that the payments can be paid by X or Y; but until the scheme is set up there is bound to be uncertainty. Small individual businesses therefore hesitate to invest because they do not know for certain what is coming.
	I should hate the noble Baroness to think that I am on the whingeing end on behalf of sub-postmasters. They would be equally dismayed if I reflected that, and I am certainly not speaking as a representative of sub-postmasters, though I go into many rural and urban post offices. If all were as well as the Minister suggests, why do so many people still prefer to collect their benefit locally in cash in the way that they have been able to do hitherto?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In future, people will still be able to go to a post office to collect their benefit in cash. They will not have to dig into their pockets and pull out a paper order book. Instead, the Post Office will hold their account and instead of, as now, their having to withdraw the whole of the order for £67 in cash and walking home with the entire week's money in their pocket, they will be able to withdraw £20 or £40. So they will go to the local post office and withdraw their cash. But they will not hand over an order book which will be stamped and then take the cash and the order book back home. That is the essential difference.
	I repeat that this should be seen as a real opportunity, both for the postmasters because of the other services they can offer with it and for people in our rural communities.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. As she said, it is not a question of people carrying an order book. That is where I come back to my amendment. How will the postmaster know that I am Mrs Jones and not Mrs Smith if I do not have a book? What identification will I show? Will I have an identity card? That is why I tabled the amendment: to enable the Minister to say in what way people will be able to identify that they are Mrs Jones and not Mrs Snooks. If they do not have a book and do not have a smart card, which has been ruled out, how will the postmaster--he may not be the local one, who may be away on holiday--know which person is which? I happily give way to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The process of identification is something which must be discussed and explored. But the problem is no different in principle than the one the banks face now.

Baroness Byford: But when one opens a bank account one completes around four pages of forms; it takes for ever and a day. Surely the noble Baroness is not suggesting that benefit recipients will have to go through the process of opening a bank account.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This measure will come into effect in 2003. The noble Baroness is pressing me, if I may say so, about extreme levels of detail; for example, the documentation that someone will need to produce in order to set up a Post Office account from which they can draw their money, which is portable between X and Y. That is precisely why we need a two to three year lead time of discussion to see what is acceptable, workable, inexpensive and fraud-proof.
	I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, but she is asking us to speed forward to 2003 and describe what we will have in place, whereas over the next few years, once we have the PIU report, we will be negotiating with POCL as to what is appropriate and acceptable.

Baroness Byford: I, equally, do not wish to be discourteous; it is the last thing that I would wish to be.
	The PIU report was asked for in October 1999; six months have gone by and we are no further down the road. I accept that it will not come into being until 2003, and therefore the Minister feels that I am pressing for too much too soon. However, I hope she understands why people need this information. My worry is that the Bill will pass through the House and we will still be no further.
	At this late hour, I do not wish to offend. I do not think the Minister has given an answer, but she feels she cannot answer the question as it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No.42.
	Page 4, line 21, at end insert--
	("( ) Where the parent has complied with obligations imposed by this section, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to her."").

Earl Russell: I should also like to speak to Amendment No.100, which deals with the same point.
	The amendments impose a duty of confidentiality on the Secretary of State where the parent concerned has complied with all the requirements of the Act. It makes the Secretary of State legally liable for any breach of confidentiality.
	These amendments are principally, but by no means solely, concerned with the situation of women who fear violence from violent ex-partners, of whom there are a good many who come the way of the agency.
	The amendment was moved by my right honourable friend Mr George, in the other place. The Minister gave him the most full-hearted assurances.
	I am certain that those assurances were given in good faith, but I have received those assurances from every Minister who has dealt with this Act, right back to my noble kinsman Lord Henley in 1991. I am certain that all those assurances were given in good faith. Every Minister who has dealt with this matter has been determined to preserve confidentiality and the safety of women who are at risk of domestic violence. However, in spite of the evident goodwill of ministers of all kinds, the flow of cases of women whose ex-partners have discovered where they were through the CSA machinery and have come in pursuit of them, often with quite serious and dangerous results, still continues.
	I do not think there is any problem whatever with Government goodwill. The problem is that we need a change of culture about awareness of the danger of domestic violence lower down the scale and through the whole of the administrative machinery.
	The Government are in agreement with that and have done their level best to help bring about a change of culture. However, it has not yet succeeded, not for want of trying, but because the task is a very big one. I do not think most people realise quite how much determination a violent ex-partner can put into the job of pursuit; quite how much cunning he can put into the job of finding the necessary information, and quite how much the man of property is still alive and well.
	Since that is the case, we hope that a duty of confidentiality will serve to concentrate the mind wonderfully. It is something that a middle-rank official, as he thinks quite harmlessly, chatting about something that is not particularly explosive, may call to mind. When my wife was dealing with the local women's refuge she came across a case in which information leading to a violent pursuit had got out even through the police, who in general are more aware of the need for confidentiality in this area than almost anyone else. If such an error can happen in those circumstances, it can happen anywhere. Therefore, we need something more than assurances in this respect.
	Perhaps I may quote just one case. I shall not trawl back over the flow of cases that I have brought to the attention of previous Ministers and which, I am afraid, have a certain sameness about them. This one comes from the Crossroads women's centre. The woman concerned was on benefit. She said:
	"I thought I couldn't live on less money than I had, so I gave them his details and I explained that he would become violent as a result. They just said 'He won't know where you are'. I explained that I'd already moved twice and he had found out where I was. The day the CSA got in touch with him he came round to where I was living with the CSA letter. I refused to answer the door, and he was throwing stones at the window and talking through the intercom at my flat. I wouldn't let him in because I was too scared to. He said, 'Bring the baby to the window so I can just see her'. As I went to the window, he kicked a brick wall down and threw a brick through the window. Luckily it missed me and the baby".
	I am sure that the Minister joins me in being sick and tired of listening to such stories. We need something fairly urgent to instil into all CSA staff the need to take seriously this requirement of confidentiality. I hope that this amendment is what is needed. If it is not, I trust that the Minister, whose ingenuity and goodwill are considerable, may be able to suggest what is needed. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I listened with great care to the piece that the noble Earl read from Crossroads. However, I did not understand the situation. Did the father know where the woman was living? Was it the fact that he was expected to pay maintenance that triggered the violence? If the father of the child did not know where the woman was living, I do not see how he could have found out simply by virtue of CSA forms. I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me here. Clearly, the woman was not in a refuge or in some place of anonymity if the father could track her down. I may have misunderstood or misheard what the noble Earl said, but this suggests to me that he knew where she was and that the search for maintenance or, indeed, any contact was such as to trigger this extremely violent man into further acts of violence.
	Perhaps the noble Earl can help me in this respect because the amendment does not deal with the sort of situation where such a man would be able to track down the woman. As far as I can tell, he did not do so because of any action by the CSA.

Earl Russell: I am handicapped by the fact that I have only a single source; namely, the woman's own account. Her description is that the man came round carrying the CSA letter, which, presumably, told him that he was being assessed for the purposes of maintenance. I can only suppose that something in that letter, or attached to it, must have revealed the woman's address. If the Minister wishes to see my source of information, she is perfectly welcome to do so. I can only quote what is in it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, the CSA could only have known that he was the father if the mother had given the agency his name and address, together with information about his workplace, and had not asked to be assessed on grounds of having good cause--in other words, not to name him. Therefore, because the woman had co-operated by naming him and giving all that information, presumably the CSA proceeded in the usual way. Either the woman failed to make clear that she had good cause or, alternatively, he already knew where she lived. It seems to me that one or the other ought to follow.
	I accept the noble Earl's point that there is only the one source of evidence and that, obviously, there are some gaps in the story that neither of us can fill in. If the noble Earl wishes to comment further on the matter, I am happy for him to do so.

Earl Russell: My source made clear that she feared domestic violence and that she already had an injunction out against the man concerned. However, the CSA apparently threatened to cut her benefit if she did not give details. That is not the first time that has happened; I have put previous cases before the Minister. There are some people involved in the service who do not understand quite how important the good cause provisions are. The person I am discussing gave her name and authorisation but asked for her address to be kept secret, but it was not. That is her specific complaint. I do not know whether that helps the Minister sufficiently but I think that is all I can add on this case.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl has been helpful. I find it extraordinary that the CSA did not accept an injunction as good cause. In all my experience of the CSA I have not come across a single case of a woman being exposed to violence as a result of unauthorised disclosure of information by the CSA. The noble Earl may, however, know of other circumstances and other situations.
	If the person the noble Earl has mentioned has not been protected by being granted anonymity, I should very much like to see the case records to discover what is going on, as such a situation does not fit with my experience of the CSA. An injunction would be prima facie evidence of good cause, of all evidence of good cause. I do not know what information was conveyed in this case. As I say, I should like to see the case records. Even if the person concerned did not claim good cause, the CSA would not have revealed her address. The maintenance inquiry forms do not carry the address of the parent with care. The only thing I can think of is that the man knew her address independently. I am happy to explore the matter further as, like the noble Earl, I do not wish such a situation to occur. If the CSA has any responsibility for that situation arising, I should want to explore it.

Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. We are all to an extent in the dark here. However, there is another possibility which I have known in a good many other cases; namely, that the violent ex-partner may well have had a personal friend or acquaintance who happened to work in the CSA. That turned out to be the background in the police case that I mentioned just now. As it happened a long time ago we are not concerned with chasing an individual. I do not want to say which police station was involved. The CAB is the source of a great many of the cases that I have relied on. The CAB has experience of a good many cases where the parent with care has experienced violence as a result of the intervention of the CSA. It is possible that when this happens the CSA is not always the first body to know. However, if the Minister will consult the CAB on this matter we may get a little further forward.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I consult the CAB, NACAB and other organisations on a regular basis. NACAB--to an even greater extent than the CAB--is not slow to bring cases forward. I believe that, given the information we have, we have probably explored this point as far as we can. If the noble Earl has further information, I should be happy to follow it up. However, as I say, the circumstances that he mentioned do not fit my experience of the agency. I believe that some other factor is in play here. It may be the one that the noble Earl suggested; namely, that there was some improper relationship between the violent father and a CSA staff member. That is, of course, to be deplored.
	Amendments Nos. 42 and 100 seek to create a legal obligation for the CSA to protect the confidentiality of information provided by parents with care on benefit who apply for a child support calculation. We take that obligation extremely seriously. Anyone working for the CSA is guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he or she discloses information acquired in the course of that employment which relates to a particular person. Such an offence can, on conviction, result in a prison sentence of up to two years. Since 1995 there have been at least three dismissals of staff for unlawful disclosure of information even though that did not lead to violence, as far as I am aware. The unlawful disclosure may have occurred as a result of friendship networks, as the noble Earl mentioned.
	Clearly information has to be disclosed to the other parent to allow him or her to understand how maintenance liability has been assessed. At the moment it includes, for example, details of a non-resident parent's net income and the relevant qualifying children. Legislation permits and specifies disclosure of this kind. However, the CSA must never disclose a parent's address or any other information which may lead to that person being located.
	Parents also have a right to refuse to allow a tribunal or court to reveal such details. This is an important safeguard. It protects the whereabouts of parents, in particular of women who may be at risk of abuse from their ex-partners if their address becomes known. Certainly my understanding following all such cases brought to me by MPs and others very close to the subject--obviously there are hundreds of letters a year on CSA issues--is that the CSA, in this area at least, has an excellent record. The CSA also rightly reassures parents with care, when they are applying for child support, that their whereabouts will remain confidential.
	I am, of course, aware of tragic cases in which parents have suffered violence as a result of being traced by ex-partners through official records--that happens--and we are trying to do what we can to avoid any repetition. But I am not aware of any case, in all the seven years of the CSA's existence, in which a parent with care has been harmed after being located through CSA records. School records and so on are matters over which we perhaps do not, unfortunately, have the same degree of control.
	This guaranteed confidentiality carries with it the ability of the CSA to sort out maintenance without any need for contact between the parents. In addition, our reforms will ensure that maintenance liability is based on simple rules, which are easy to understand and hard to avoid. So that even where there is hostility between the parents, the reforms we are proposing will reduce that risk rather than increase it, simply because so little information is required from the non-resident parent. In other words, she should face a reduced risk compared to the current situation. Therefore Amendments Nos. 42 and 100 are both unnecessary. We already provide adequate and robust protection of personal information provided by clients to the CSA.
	I could go on to talk about Section 50 of the 1991 Act, which makes it unlawful to disclose and so on. However, the amendment seeks to provide protection which is already provided under Section 50 of the 1991 Act, which prevents unauthorised disclosure of information for all CSA clients. As I said, if the noble Earl wishes to come back to me with any particular case, I shall be very happy to look at it, but, with that assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for the care and concern with which she has greeted this information. I would never for one moment have expected anything else from her.
	That is the paragraph from which I have been quoting. I was not intending to make any specific criticism of the CSA. I said that I was dealing with a general problem about unawareness in our culture. In another of the cases in the letter to which I referred--not the same case--the CSA inadvertently disclosed without realising what it was detonating. The man rang up to say that he was going round to attack the woman, and the CSA immediately rang her up to warn her that he was coming. So, realising what it had done, in that case the CSA did its level best to make amends. I allege no ill will; I allege simply a lack of awareness.
	I am faced here with two totally convincing stories, told by two totally impeccable sources, which are in fundamental conflict. When I am faced with that as an academic problem, I tend to assume that the sources of information available to the two parties are different, and that each of them is telling the whole truth as it is known to them.
	The point that I made just now, that the people to whom this happens do not take the CSA as their first port of call to say what is happening to them, is perhaps the most important one. I am certain that these problems do not reach the Minister's desk; I am certain that usually they do not reach Faith Boardman's desk. But they go on happening.
	I wish I believed that this amendment was unnecessary. If the Minister can persuade me between now and Report stage that there is another way of tackling the problem, I will be very willing to consider that. What I cannot be persuaded of is that the present situation is satisfactory, however great the good faith of those in charge. But, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Default and interim maintenance decisions]:

Lord Dean of Harptree: In calling Amendment No. 43, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 44.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 4, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 5.

Earl Russell: Amendment No. 43 is a probing amendment. It deals with the provision to make default and interim maintenance decisions. This is another Cambyses clause which says that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes. I ask: what does he like? And what else could he do if he did like? I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 43 seeks to remove the regulation-making power from Clause 4 which permits the Secretary of State to set procedures in respect of default and interim maintenance decisions. Does the noble Earl wish me to explain fully what the clause does? I am happy to do so but I realise the time of night. Does the noble Earl wish me to outline the purpose of the clause?

Earl Russell: In a cursory way.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How could the noble Earl invite me to do something in a cursory way?

Earl Russell: The noble Baroness mentioned the time of night.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Every academic listening to the noble Earl should reject such a phrase.
	The clause substitutes a new Section 12 which allows liability to be set at a default or interim rate where it is not possible to make a decision on full liability. In the existing scheme a punitive interim maintenance assessment is imposed where full information cannot be obtained or the non-resident parent fails to co-operate with the CSA. However, these assessments do not work. The interim maintenance assessments are very high--averaging about £90 a week--and the vast majority of non-resident parents, almost 90 per cent, do not pay a penny. That is largely because by the time the agency imposes such a punitive interim maintenance assessment--hereafter known as an IMA--large arrears have already built up and enforcement becomes difficult. If there is a cliff to climb, people do not climb it, particularly when the non-resident parent is self-employed. There is no incentive on the non-resident parent to pay the interim assessment because when, finally, the information is supplied, liability reverts to the full maintenance assessment, which is nearly always lower.
	In the new scheme we will be making decisions about maintenance in a matter of days. Where a non-resident parent refuses to provide information about his income we will be able to get it either direct from his employer or, in self-employed cases, via the Inland Revenue. Parents who refuse to provide information will also face fines of up to £1,000. However, there may be some circumstances where a final decision on liability cannot be reached straightaway; for example, where someone has recently started self-employment--he has stopped being employed and has become self-employed--and it is not straightforward to estimate what his current income is and therefore what his liability is, or where a variation application remains outstanding. To ensure that some simple maintenance is, nevertheless, paid in these cases we are introducing a simple system of default rates to get maintenance flowing. We want to avoid debts building up and we want people to pay as soon as possible.
	Clause 4 provides for default rates of liability to be used where there is not enough information to calculate a rate of maintenance liability. We intend that default rates of maintenance will be put in place quickly and that they will be set according to whether there are one, two or three or more children to be maintained. We envisage rates of £30, £40 and £50 for those children, which reflects the average net income of the non-resident parent. In other words, they are not punitive. They are simply an averaging--a default payment which someone will pay until the final determination has been made. This will prevent large amounts of arrears building up and, because default rates will be put in place quickly, they will be easier to enforce.
	An interim maintenance decision will be put in place where an application for a variation was made at the outset but has not been determined at the point where the information is available to the Secretary of State to make a Schedule 1 calculation. The powers in this clause will be used to get maintenance flowing where all of the information needed to calculate final liability cannot be obtained quickly. The clause helps to ensure that payments will come regularly.
	Regulations will be used to set out the procedures to be followed in making decisions about the imposition and amount of the default rate. Procedural rules are more suitable for secondary legislation and the default rate, which is intended to reflect average child support liabilities, will need to be updated from time to time to reflect changes in earnings. I am pleased to say that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, when it considered this legislation, found it necessary to comment on only a few delegated powers. It did not comment on the delegated power in Clause 4.
	Amendment No. 43 would compromise our ability to deliver a flexible and responsive scheme which allows maintenance to flow. The scheme is not punitive but is based on the average earnings or the average income of non-resident parents and gets the maintenance flowing early. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: Before the Minister sits down, it may be more convenient to raise this point at this stage. Is it the case that if a person overpays, that person does not receive the money back?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If it is a default payment, yes. We do not envisage that happening very often. The kind of situation where we envisage a default payment occurring--an interim maintenance payment occurring--is where someone has, for example, been stringing the department along for quite a long period of time. The normal situation is that a maintenance assessment is sent out to someone within four to six weeks. Therefore, questions of default payments should not arise. Where we suspect they are likely to arise is where there is, for example, a collusive employer: it may be a small family business, a garage, for example, in which the son is working with the father and they are stringing the system along.
	We want the default powers to be available if at the end of the day someone is, to put it colloquially, messing the agency around and we want the money to flow. The provision is not punitive in the sense that the figure is an average amount which we believe he should have been paying all along. If he pays properly, he will move on to his real assessment, which may be higher or lower. If his real assessment is higher, he will be expected to pay the rest; if it is lower, he will not be given a refund, so to speak, because he should not have got into a default situation. Had he come clean with the agency, an interim maintenance assessment based on his estimated income would have been in place. I suspect that the noble Lord is anticipating some other amendments which may arise later. With that information, perhaps he may feel able not to move them.

Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister will forgive my intervening, who is the judge of whether the person is stringing the system along?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To produce a maintenance assessment, the agency basically needs only three pieces of information: the name of the non-resident partner's employer, his net earnings and the number of children he has. That information should be able to be produced by means of a telephone call in a matter of hours. There may be occasions when a person is, for example, away on holiday, but in the normal course of events that information should be available to the agency within a couple of days. The agency should, in turn, be able to set the estimate of the maintenance he should pay within a matter of a few days and that money should be flowing in four to six weeks.
	If the process is drawn out--if he fails to produce information about his earnings and the like or the employer says that he cannot give certain information--at that point we may need the backstop of default powers. I do not conceive of their being used very often. Given the simplicity of the system and the alternative of using a fine and adding £8,000, that may be a more appropriate way of proceeding. But the default powers are there if after an appropriate period of time we have failed to obtain the information to make the maintenance assessment and to get the money flowing.
	This provision replaces the interim maintenance assessment. The previous administration recognised the need for a punitive interim maintenance assessment. Our proposal is not punitive. It is based simply on average payments. But we need a backstop in case someone strings the agency along and elongates a process which can be completed in a 10-minute telephone conversation. We need that power for the sake of the children.

Earl Russell: Has the Minister, in a way that is not in the least cursory, told me that the Secretary of State is judge and party in his own cause?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, if this is regarded as unreasonable the person will have the right to go to a tribunal and to contest the matter. At the end of the day, the information required to determine an assessment is something that I suspect every person in this Chamber could produce simply by direct answer to a question and without referral to any other document.
	We are not talking about the complicated arrangements that currently exist whereby it would be reasonable for the non-resident parent to have to consult records to see whether he has kept them and so forth. There can be no excuses for delay, apart from circumstances where, for example, someone is changing his occupation or seeking a variation on the grounds of high contact costs and the like--whereupon the assessment will then be an interim maintenance assessment which is not a default assessment but based, by discussion and negotiation, on the best assessment of the person's income. The default power is there where someone is failing to respond in a reasonable way and is stringing the agency along. We are setting down a working assumption of what he should pay. If he does like it, the answer is to get a move on.

Earl Russell: I accept that the Minister is making a perfectly sensible short-term case in a particular context. However, the Secretary of State is beginning to appear a bit of a Pooh-Bah. He is the legislator who lays down very wide powers for his own use; he then collects the money; he then decides whether people are stringing him along; and he then collects the money if they do. It is not a particularly controlled power: it is the Secretary of State wearing one hat, talking to the Secretary of State wearing another hat, passing on the power to the Secretary of State having a third hat. It is not a particularly controlled system and it does not seem a particularly constitutional one. Nevertheless, I do not intend to pursue the matter any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 45:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT: MAINTENANCE DISREGARD
	(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that, in determining the entitlement of a parent with care or his partner (if any) to income support or income-based jobseekers allowance, there shall be disregarded as income the first £15 of any maintenance paid each week to the parent with care.").

Earl Russell: This amendment seeks to increase the £10 maintenance disregard to £15. Before I play Oliver Twist, I congratulate the Minister. The £10 disregard is one of her great achievements. We have worked together in this cause in the past. The noble Baroness is the one who has been able to deliver, and I congratulate her on it. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will not blame me for playing Oliver Twist. After all, it is the duty of an opposition. Both of us have always argued that the best way to secure compliance is not by a series of threats and penalties but by giving people an incentive to co-operate so that children are better off. This measure does that, but we believe that if it is a little bigger it may do a little better. Since I am sure that the Minister can script the rest of the argument herself, at this time of night I shall say only that I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is late. Basically, one needs to give a full description of what the Government are doing for lone parents to show that this is part of a balanced set of proposals. We have gone for a £10 disregard as opposed to nil in order to get parents with care to co-operate with the agency and ensure that a direct benefit goes to the children to tackle child poverty. Obviously, it is also an encouragement to fathers who see that some of the money that is provided goes to the children.
	The noble Earl proposes that we raise the sum to £15. We expect that over time our reforms will at least double the proportion of children and families on income support for whom maintenance is paid. Together with the new child maintenance premium, this means that about 600,000 children and families on income support will see the benefit of maintenance for the first time. Obviously, while lone parents would like a £15, £20 or £25 disregard, none the less £10 will make a substantial difference to the material wellbeing of such families. The average family headed by a lone parent receives an income of about £88 a week. The premium will increase family income by well over 10 per cent, which itself will have a substantial effect on child poverty. That is in addition to the increases which lone parents with children on income support have received under this Government since 1997. For example, the rate for a child under 11 has almost doubled over three years from £16.90 to over £30 in the autumn. In addition, it was announced in the Budget that there would be an increase in the earnings disregard. Consequently, parents on income support will see their incomes go up in terms of benefit levels and earnings disregard. Obviously, parents in work will see the application of WFTC and the minimum wage.
	If the noble Earl views this in the context of everything else that we are doing for lone parents and the substantial cost to the child maintenance premium as is, which is an extra £65 million, I hope that he will regard this as reasonable. This is cost neutral. None the less, I believe that the £10 is a generous addition to lone parents' budgets over and beyond all the other changes by government. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl understands why the Government are not minded to raise the figure to £15 as he wishes.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for her reply and hear what she says. When the noble Baroness looks at the effect of this measure will she also monitor whether there is any increased compliance as a result of the introduction of the premium? That may affect the costings and, in turn, debates with the Treasury. If that could be done it would be rather interesting.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think that there is any way in which we shall be able to determine the degree of compliance associated with the child premium as opposed to everything else we are doing--above all, making the formula so simple that CSA staff will be able to spend most of their time ensuring that there is compliance rather than trying to do a maintenance assessment which is then never delivered in terms of cash for children.
	If the noble Earl can tell me how one could isolate that one variable amount from the 50 or 70 other variables involved in the changes we are making, I shall be interested to hear from him.

Earl Russell: I wondered about that question while I was on my feet. The answer has occurred to me at this moment: the Minister brings in the Bill with the £10 attached and after a year increases the amount to £15 and sees whether compliance improves. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Departure from usual rules for calculating maintenance]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

Lord Higgins: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
	Page 6, line 12, leave out ("one of the conditions") and insert ("the condition").

Lord Higgins: I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 48 or 51 which stand in my name. However, the noble Earl may wish to move Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 with which I have considerable sympathy.

Earl Russell: I was wondering whether it was rather late at night to go into an issue as big as this. Does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wish me to move the amendment now?

Lord Higgins: That is a matter for the noble Earl. It seemed to me that it raised important questions. It is a matter for the noble Earl to consider whether it would be more appropriate to do so at a later stage. I do not think that it would be helpful at this stage to move my amendments, which are technical in nature.

Earl Russell: I shall go along with that. It is somewhat late for a really big issue, so I shall not move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]

Earl Russell: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
	Page 7, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

Baroness Buscombe: I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being slow in rising to my feet. I had expected the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to move Amendment No. 52.
	I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 53 to 70. In essence we want people's financial arrangements to be determined on the basis of their income and commitments. The Bill in its entirety will not, we fear, stand up to the need to reform and improve the workings of the CSA unless the Government accept that not all situations are the same and uniform. We need to respond to that by helping people to cope.
	Many of the relationships that brought about the happy event of the children in the first place have broken down because people are unable to cope. If we make it harder, who will ultimately lose out? It will be the children.
	Our amendments in relation to Clause 5 and Schedule 2 are saying that we must respond to real life situations--everyday individual commitments--and then there is a chance that the children will fully benefit from what is already, for them, a tough situation.
	As my honourable friend in another place, Mr Eric Pickles, said during Committee stage,
	"what might be equal and fair justice for one person might be rough justice for someone else. That is why the variations we seek are important".
	We agree with the Government that the present formula is too complex. What we want to ensure is that a simplified formula is fair, equitable and flexible.
	In that case, we believe that it is right to stipulate on the face of the Bill a number of foreseeable living costs which might impact on the welfare of children in any relationship; for example, costs in respect of any handicapped child or children with other special needs, the significant costs of childcare, costs of boarding school and the often high costs of travel to work. We list further examples in what I must make clear are probing amendments, albeit important, which we have tabled in order to seek reassurance from the Minister that her Government are as concerned as we are to ensure fairness and flexibility for the sake of the children.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said tonight in relation to Clause 1, if you set out to avoid complexity you avoid the real world. I entirely agree. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we have heard, all these amendments relate to the provisions under which the Secretary of State may agree to a variation from the normal rules of calculation. Perhaps I may spend a few moments explaining why we are making the change.
	We believe that simple and consistent rules will provide a clearer and more efficient child support service for children and get money flowing regularly and reliably. Parents will be able to see at a glance how much maintenance they must pay even before they break up.
	We believe that the new approach will result in a fair calculation of maintenance in the vast majority of cases. In other words, it is a straightforward rate. However, we recognise that there will always be exceptional cases where the child support rates do not properly reflect a non-resident parent's ability to support his children. For example, he may need to spend an exceptionally large amount of money keeping in touch with the children, or the net income used in working out his liability may not properly reflect the resources available to him. We therefore intend to provide for a variation from the normal rules in such truly exceptional cases and circumstances.
	Members of the Committee will be aware that the current scheme also attempts to allow for expenses not covered by the formula assessment. The existing departures scheme was introduced in December 1996. Departures were heralded as introducing added flexibility into a rigid formula and they were widely welcomed. But departures produced more complexity, confusion and delay into a cumbersome system.
	We have therefore looked very closely at the expenses which merit a variation of liability. We have two grounds. We believe that parents should put children, not other expenses, first. That is why we have sought to distinguish between, on the one hand, expenses which a non-resident parent should meet from income after meeting his responsibility to his children--for instance, housing costs and travel to work--and, on the other hand, primarily child-related expenses which could affect his ability to pay child support. We intend to allow variations only in respect of the latter. For the first time, they will include the costs of the overnight stay after travelling a long distance, not just the petrol costs and costs of travel for contact.
	We also intend to allow variations to increase liability where the income on which the maintenance calculation has been based does not reflect the non-resident parent's true ability to pay. For example, the case of the student who may be exempt but calculated as a mature student with a high income, or where someone is self-employed and declaring an income of, say, £100 a week but none the less is managing to live in a rather large house, with a rather large car, taking rather long holidays and is clearly living a lifestyle that deviates from the declared income. Again, the parent with care may be able to seek a variation.
	Equally, as capital and interest from capital will no longer feature in the normal calculations, we have already indicated in the Bill that we will be looking at cases where the non-resident parent has assets exceeding a value to be prescribed. That will prevent people shifting their living costs from income to capital in order to protect their money. The new Schedule 4B, as introduced by Schedule 2, provides details of the cases and circumstances where a variation may be allowed.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 55 to 70. The noble Baroness appeared to say that she was in favour of simplicity in general but that complexity may exist in a particular circumstance. I hope that she will accept the warning not only of her honourable friend Mr Pickles but of her honourable friend Edward Leigh, who said that we should avoid seeking to transfer to the appeals system the complexity which we are getting rid of in the assessment process. We are worried about what we believe she may assume is exceptional.
	Amendments Nos. 64 and 66, for example, would enable every non-resident parent to claim a variation in respect of housing costs or high housing costs. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 would allow the non-resident parent who maintained contact with his child to claim a variation in respect of any and all his expenses, regardless of whether or not the expenses are in any way related to the period of contact. Therefore, the allowable costs in those cases would include not only the costs of travelling to see the child, but also the parent's housing costs, travel-to-work costs and, indeed, any other costs. The noble Baroness's amendments almost precisely reinvent the complexity of the current formula.
	Perhaps I may give an example of the complexity of costs on housing, which I believe was cited by the noble Baroness. As a starting point, if we were to include housing costs and were to continue to do so, staff would have to pick their way through the minefield of different mortgage and loan arrangements which currently exist in order to establish which applies in any particular case. They would have to establish how much of the repayment is in respect of interest, how much is in respect of capital, whether an endowment policy or investment plan has been obtained for the purpose of discharging the loan and whether it is intended to accrue profits. They would then go on to consider the extent to which any or all of the costs in question should be allowed by establishing who is responsible for the costs, whether the responsibility is shared, whether repayments of loans taken out for repairs and improvements to the property should be allowed, whether the property is used for both business and residential purposes, and, where the parent has more than one home, a decision must be made on which property is to be regarded as the principal home.
	I could go on to talk about housing benefit, and so on, but I have tried to give an illustration with regard to only one cost--housing benefit--of the amount of complexity that would be introduced if we allowed it as a variation. I cannot conceive that any non-resident parent would not seek a variation on grounds of housing costs, even if that were to be rejected as not being exceptional.

Lord Higgins: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will allow me to ask whether she believes that any of the items specified would have some justification for variation?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder what the noble Lord has in mind. Can he indicate to what he believes we should give particular attention?

Lord Higgins: I am looking at the question the other way round. We have provided a long list, and the noble Baroness proposes to reject all of them. I am asking whether she believes that any of them might reasonably provide the basis for a variation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am looking at the particular words. Amendment No. 56 concerns exceptionally high housing costs, travel-to-work costs, illness or disability costs. That includes all the items that are currently in the existing formula. Therefore, we are back to where we were. We then add to that payments made by the parent with care or non-resident parent to support an elderly or invalid relative. Yes, those would be new and would add to the complexity of the system, as would costs in respect of a handicapped child, joint debts incurred, and so on. Significant costs of childcare are also mentioned.
	That shopping list not only takes the complexity of the existing formula and places it in the appeal process, but adds for good measure a few hundred other avenues to pursue. The amendments extend a whole range of additional items above and beyond those currently in the complexity of the assessment. They suggest that we take the assessment, go to appeal and add some new appeal grounds as well. Is that really what the noble Lord wants?

Lord Higgins: No, but that was not the question that I posed to the Minister. I understand that she has problems with items which duplicate existing provisions or introduce new ones. However, given the long list, I am asking whether she believes that any provide the basis for variation. Perhaps I may also quote an example. Does she believe, for example, that there is a case for variation with regard to costs in respect of a handicapped child?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, and I hope that noble Lords opposite may share this philosophy. Basically, we are reducing the amount of average assessment that the non-resident parent will pay. On average, that sum will come down from approximately £38 or £39 to approximately £30 or £31 per week. We are making that sum less. We are leaving more in the pocket with which to meet those additional costs. We are not saying that they are not perfectly proper items of expenditure. But we are saying that they should not be put ahead of the primary responsibility of maintaining the child of the first family.
	The only two grounds for variation are where the non-caring parent is incurring costs which are associated with the support of the children of the first family, which it is proper should recognised; or, alternatively, where the basis of income on which the assessment has been made is not regarded as the proper basis of income by the parent with care and she seeks a variation on that ground.
	Perhaps we may stay with the first of those. I have given the example of exceptional costs of contact--overnight stays. Another example may be where the non-resident parent--the father, in this case--is a sergeant in the army and the child has been at boarding school. The father does not wish to disturb the child's arrangements. Therefore the child stays on at boarding school. The father is paying for the boarding school maintenance costs--not the fees for the education--so that it would be unreasonable for him to be paying the parent with care for all the care and provision which she would normally provide. That is being provided by the boarding school and, in that case, the father would be asked to pay twice over. We take that into account.
	Another example would be where the father, the non-resident parent, has taken over meeting the housing costs of the child--that is, the mortgage--but has retained no equity stake in the property. That would properly be regarded as a contribution to the child's maintenance.
	But our touchstone is not what expenses he has to meet in his life after he has left the first family. The touchstone is whether he is supporting legitimately the child of the first family and whether there are expenses associated with that which we should take into account. That is our touchstone, apart from the second ground of variation which is the manipulation or misrepresentation of income.
	The noble Baroness is welcome to press me further in relation to any of those grounds because it is an important issue. But that is our philosophy. We are saying that these are all perfectly proper expenditure items but the non-caring parent makes a decision on what he spends in relation to housing, travel to work, his car or support for other members of the family after he has discharged his primary obligation--the support of the children of the first family.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that very full and clear explanation. I shall consider carefully, when I am a little more lively, what she has said in Hansard. I may wish to return to this matter on Report.

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Substituted Schedules 4A and 4B to the 1991 Act]:
	[Amendments Nos. 54 to 69 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Variations: revision and supersession]:
	[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Appeals to appeal tribunals]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Page 10, line 4, leave out ("an appeal tribunal") and insert ("a county court").

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 and 199. In tabling these amendments, we are highlighting our concern that the levels of maintenance are vitally important to all the parties and to the children and there needs to be a system of appeal where appropriate cases can be reviewed.
	We believe that that appeal should be to the district judges at the county court who are already experienced in dealing with maintenance and have an existing and well-used procedure. District judges are not only well experienced in that sort of work but are given a wide discretion to take into account all the circumstances including, for example, the earning capacity of an absent parent to ensure that justice can be done. It would be quite possible for the regulations to make it clear that the formula would normally apply and exceptional circumstances would be needed before a court would adjust the formula.
	Even in criminal matters, citizens are entitled to appear before the court to ask that their individual circumstances be taken into account before a fine is imposed. Here we are talking about assessments that may involve a person paying up to a quarter of their income for 16 years. It must be right that they have an opportunity to be heard in appropriate cases. An application to court would also enable the applicant to apply for funding by the Legal Services Commission so that they could be assisted if that were appropriate or necessary.
	Although it is suggested by the Government that that would result in a significant increase in the work of the county court, we believe that that is unlikely. Ten years ago, before the CSA began, all maintenance matters were dealt with, in any event, through the courts and the courts were quite capable of coping. Here we are talking about the courts looking only at a minority of matters where there are good grounds to appeal against an unfair assessment. The absence of such a right has led to much of the resentment that has undermined the current CSA and, unfortunately, the Bill does not address that point. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for introducing these amendments. I like the sound of them. To me they appear to meet a real need. In the course of discussing them I want to remind the Minister that on Clause 2 she said that the Government considered the possibility of allowing those cases to go to the courts using guidelines based on the CSA formula but with the licence to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. When we put the Minister's remarks together with the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has just made and with my concerns, we have a basis for reaching common ground, which would be rather nice.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 199 would remove from Schedule 9, which lists repeals and revocations in the 1991 Act, the provision to repeal Section 46B(3).

Earl Russell: Perhaps I can save the Minister some time. I shall not move Amendment No. 199, so there is no need to reply to it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 relate to Clause 10. To set this group of amendments in context I would like to outline, briefly, the purpose of this clause. Clause 10 sets out clearly the child support decisions which carry a right of appeal. It provides the framework for appeals and tribunal procedure which will be, as now, specified in detail in regulations.
	In a reformed child support scheme, we want liability to be established quickly. That means that the agency should, wherever possible, settle disputes without the need for a formal appeal. Parents will have access to an efficient and effective disputes service. However, we recognise that the right of appeal represents an important guarantee of parents' rights. The tribunal system allows child support liability to be considered by an independent body with legal expertise where disputes cannot be settled in discussion with the agency.
	As now, in the reformed scheme appeals may be made against decisions relating to child support liability. Where a benefit penalty is imposed, because a parent with care claiming income support opts out of child support without good cause, a right of appeal will still arise. There will also be rights of appeal against financial penalties for late payment of maintenance and, if and when those are introduced, any fees.
	Our proposals build on changes to the appeals system for child support introduced from June 1999. These changes were part of the move to a simpler and more streamlined decision-making and appeals process across the Department of Social Security. Where a parent is unhappy with a decision and chooses to appeal, the appeal should be handled and resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible.
	Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 71 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. These amendments would give child support clients the right of appeal to a county court rather than an appeal system. I believe that this would be a deeply retrograde step. The court system, although independent, was widely seen as having failed to protect children's rights to proper maintenance. Parents with care often found difficulty in getting a maintenance order enforced. Too often non-resident parents were able to avoid ongoing responsibility for their children. This left children in poverty and the taxpayer to pick up the bill.
	Many parents find the prospect of going to court intimidating. They are more likely to feel at ease in an informal tribunal setting. Using the court system will result in further delays and may cause confusion because another jurisdiction will be involved. In addition, courts are adversarial in their approach, which would lead to greater confrontation in child support appeals. This conflicts with the need to set child support in the wider family setting and promote consensus between parents. Moreover, the tribunal system benefits from the presence of a presenting officer whose role is to explain the decision under appeal and assist in ensuring that all parties to an appeal get a fair hearing. The costs of involving the courts would also be substantially higher--around £20 million a year compared with £5.5 million for the appeals service.
	Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 seek to place on the face of the Bill a right of appeal to a tribunal against the level of the maintenance assessed. Again, this is unnecessary. Parents already have a right of appeal against a decision about whether any child support maintenance is payable and, if so, how much.
	I believe that to move out of the jurisdiction of the CSA to a court jurisdiction for appeals would effectively undermine much of what we are trying to do; namely, to keep this as a simple and straightforward administrative procedure. We wish to remain within the tribunal system rather than having the courts used for appeals which would start the process all over again in terms of what the CSA appeals system is seeking to do. I say again that I believe that would be a retrograde step. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendments.

Earl Russell: I know that it is late at night, but I do not think that I can let that response pass without comment. If the Minister is telling the Committee that people find the courts more intimidating than the CSA, that is something that I would find difficult to believe, even if it came from Rory Bremner.
	As for the enforcement powers of the courts, the Minister knows perfectly well that it is the contention of the courts that they did not get help from other agencies, including the police and the DSS, which they might legitimately have expected. They did not receive adequate staffing for enforcement and they did not get sufficient funding or powers.
	Furthermore, all the information on which the Minister relies dates from a period before the Children Act which put right some of these matters. I shall not spend time on that, but if the Minister does not wish to prolong our proceedings, I hope that she will not repeat too many statements with which she knows I will stand up and argue.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, I believe those statements to be right: that the courts were a form of lottery; they failed to deliver money to children; they were adversarial and inequitable. On the same day, cases could be heard of two people on the same income in which one person was asked to pay £5 while the other was asked to pay £50 on an income of £100. If the noble Earl thinks that that is reasonable and fair, then we have very different conceptions of what comprises fairness.
	If the noble Earl widens the debate into deeper issues concerning the effectiveness and appropriateness of the court procedure, then I shall wish to challenge him all the way. The courts failed children and we shall not go back to that system again, either to make basic maintenance assessments or as a form of appeal.

Earl Russell: I did not introduce this. The Minister has introduced two different decisions. She has not told me the circumstances of those decisions and so I can have no opinion without knowing those circumstances.
	As regards the point about the courts being adversarial, does she seriously maintain that that remained the case after the passage of the Children Act? I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would agree with that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Earl asks me which system I believe to be in the best interests of a child where a father wishes to reduce his maintenance payments, under the noble Earl's theory he can either go to court and slog it out in an adversarial setting saying, "This is how little I value my child; I want to pay less maintenance"--because that is the nature of an adversarial court setting; alternatively, a tribunal can sit which is informal, chaired by a person with legal experience but in which that adversarial climate does not dominate. I know which system I believe to be in the best interests of the child.
	However, my argument does not rest only on the adversarial nature of the courts. The outcome of a court hearing depends on which lawyers are employed and which court hears the case. That means that people in similar circumstances could be treated in very dissimilar ways, usually to the disadvantage of the child and the parent with care. Usually they are the ones unable to afford the most hard-hitting lawyers.
	I must tell the noble Earl that I have read and re-read the research which persuaded the previous administration to depart from the court system and move to an agency system. I believe that it was entirely right then and that we are entirely right now. It is obvious that subsequently the system became too complicated, but I refute any suggestion that it would be fairer for children if we returned to the courts. That would be good only for those non-resident parents who are still deeply angry. However, we are not seeking to produce a system that caters to the anger management of non-resident parents. We wish to produce a system that addresses the well-being of children. I am completely persuaded that the courts are not the right vehicle to do that, either at the assessment level or at the appeal level.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for her full and clear explanation of the amendments. I am concerned about her reply and I have some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. For that reason, I should like to consider carefully what she has said and perhaps return to the matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
	Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Information--offences]:
	[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Inspectors]:
	[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Presumption of parentage in child support cases]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 14, line 4, leave out ("that person's") and insert ("the child's").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 79 [Tests for determining parentage]:
	[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
	Clause 79 agreed to.
	Clause 80 agreed to.
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Disqualification from driving]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 83:
	Page 14, line 18, at beginning insert ("in England and Wales").
	Page 14, line 19, at end insert ("or 38").
	Page 14, line 21, leave out ("a magistrates'") and insert ("the").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 14, line 30, at end insert (", to buy his food, to take his children to school, or to attend medical treatment").

Earl Russell: With this, I want to speak also to Amendment No. 86 and Clause 16 stand part.
	This clause introduces the deprivation of driving licences as a penalty, which we believe is entirely inappropriate and out of place. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on having pipped me to the post by putting his name to an amendment to delete the clause before I could do so--but I shall be with him when the time comes.
	I am well aware that there is exemption for persons who need a driving licence to earn their living, but in our flexible labour market people who have a job now may not have it in six weeks or six months. If the Minister recalls our debates on housing benefit change of circumstances, she will be as aware of that point as I can possibly make her.
	It is already clear that people who do not have a driving licence are disadvantaged in the search for employment, often severely. Amendment No. 86 provides that persons subject to that penalty shall be exempt from the actively seeking work rules for the period for which they have no driving licence.
	Amendment No. 84 deals with other reasons for needing a car. I specified those who need a car to provide food; to take the children to school which, in the case of shared care or in the case of children of a second marriage, may be a real need; or to attend medical treatment. I did not put in to attend the bank or the post office, but in the light of some of the remarks on earlier amendments I may well do so before we return to this on Report.
	The provision in this clause is another blow to rural England. There are a great many areas in England where one simply cannot travel about unless one has a car. If one should work in those areas, one is unemployable until one retrieves the driving licence. So the Government here are proposing to shoot themselves in the foot. In general, they want more people to be employed. But they are here introducing a provision which means that fewer people will be employed.
	I observe that the Minister shakes her head. We have been known to disagree before and will be known to disagree again; and this seems to be one of those cases. I said that this is a blow to rural England; but it is not only rural England. If one is looking for a job in London, if travel to work is radial, across London rather than in and out of the centre, one may well find that one cannot do it without a car. My son, looking for vacation employment when he was a student, was offered a job doing night work in a warehouse, five miles away across London. There was absolutely no way he could do that job unless he had a car to travel to and fro. There was no bus service, even in the day time, and it was an area in which I would not advise anyone to work, and the job centre would not advise anyone to work either, if it meant walking afterwards.
	There are plenty of other urban areas in the same situation. So we are introducing here a severe restriction on people's freedom of action; on their chance to be employed. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, wish to intervene?

Baroness Crawley: I just wanted to ask the noble Earl if he would agree with me that all that has to be done in order to retrieve the driving licence is to pay the maintenance.

Earl Russell: The whole basis of the disagreement between me and the Government is that I believe that there are a number of cases under the formula where people cannot pay what is required of them. We had the same argument over the poll tax. The government always said exactly that in defending the poll tax; that people only have to pay up. There were a good many who could not. I can recall struggling to make Ministers admit that. I never succeeded. I do not seem to be doing any better in getting Ministers to admit it in relation to the CSA. But the problems appear to me to be identical and I shall proceed on that basis.
	Anyway, even if the person is totally in the wrong--let us assume that for the purpose of argument--does it do any good either to the children, the Government or to the economy of the country to render them unemployable? I should have thought there was a strong argument for saying no to that question. It is on that basis that I tabled these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: This is a matter which I raised at Second Reading and one which we feel is important. When this proposal that people should lose their driving licence if they did not meet the requirements of the Child Support Agency was first introduced, it was not clear whether it was to be an additional penalty on top of other penalties, or a new penalty. Nonetheless, it was heralded as a breakthrough when the matter was raised. At Second Reading it was hammered pretty badly on several grounds, not least because there was no connection at all between the penalty on the one hand and the offence on the other. When the matter was discussed at Second Reading I formulated the arguments myself, because they seemed to be overwhelming. This is a strange way of proceeding.
	The argument made out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was also somewhat strange. He said that this was somehow a blow at rural England. That seems to me to be overstating the situation since it is only a blow at those people in rural England who are not paying their maintenance. The argument put forward against the proposal could not possibly be as silly as that which the Government have in mind. It reduces the whole level of debate to come up with this kind of penalty for this kind of offence. I believe I will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in that view.
	As I said at Second Reading, there is a huge range of arguments. I was not at that time aware that representations were also being made by the RAC Foundation. I must cover myself here because, although I was totally unaware of them, I should also stress that I did not write them. Noble Lords will know that when we are discussing pensions I normally declare an interest as chairman of a pensions fund. By one of the strangest coincidences, that pension fund may well take over responsibility for the RAC Pension Fund. I do not think it can conceivably be thought that I have an interest, but I mention it in case anyone thinks that that is so.
	The arguments that they put forward are considerable and back up in some sense the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that to take away a driving licence from someone who has not paid their maintenance agreement may well deprive them of the ability to pay the maintenance. That is a strange proposition coming from the Government.
	At Second Reading the Minister put forward arguments based on the American experience. As I stressed then, the American experience is vastly different. I remember when I lived in the United States that one frequently produced a driving licence with a photograph on it for all kinds of purposes, for example cashing cheques. However, in this country I cannot remember when I was asked to produce a driving licence. Indeed, I think most people would have difficulty in managing to find their driving licence. Depriving people of a driving licence will not be an effective bar unless they happen to commit a motoring offence where they are required to produce a driving licence. It may mean that people drive when disqualified and therefore their insurance is not valid; and if they happen to hit someone and kill them, they might not be covered. This is a more serious aspect of the matter.
	The Government, having made such a hullabaloo about this matter in the first place, ought seriously to consider whether it is an appropriate penalty. There are a number of other penalties in the Bill. We support the view that it is right to put more emphasis on enforcement and less on an arithmetical calculation of the amount due. We heartily support the Government in that regard and believe that there are cases for tougher penalties on those who fail to take responsibility and pay for their children. However, the introduction of this totally irrelevant penalty will pose a considerable danger. I hope that on reflection, despite the initial spin-doctoring that went on, the Government will think it appropriate to get rid of this proposal and stick to the other more serious penalties that are clearly set out in the Bill.

Baroness Crawley: We should remember why this provision is in the Bill. It is there because only 66 per cent of maintenance due is actually paid at present. Therefore, we have to look at serious ways of ensuring that maintenance due is paid. Although the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, dismissed the American experience, the evidence shows that the very threat of withdrawal led to a vast increase in the amount of maintenance due being paid. In fact, the number of people who had their driving licences withdrawn was very small when compared with the amount of money that came to children as a result of that threat. We return again to the central argument that has featured throughout our discussions this evening; namely, that it is the children who matter. The resources should be going as quickly and speedily as possible to the children. In that case, the threat of withdrawal actually led to some action.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also referred to other possible penalties instead of removing driving licences. I understand that he was thinking of tagging as a possibility. Surely that would criminalise the parent in front of the child. It is a sanction that is over the top as far as concerns damaging the relationship between the parent and the child. I believe that we have much to learn from the American experience. For example, if the noble Lord wants to hire a video next Saturday night, he may, if he is a new hirer in the video store, be asked to produce a driving licence as evidence of his identity.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He will be in Amsterdam, so there is not much chance of that.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We really are in danger of going over the top here. My noble friend just mentioned tagging people who do not pay maintenance--

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposition that tagging should be considered for non-payment was put forward by Mr Eric Pickles in another place. That would criminalise the matter and make it a criminal offence instead of a civil one. It would mean having someone tagged in front of his children for failing to pay maintenance.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I said, we are going over the top. Indeed, it seems that everyone is going over the top, except me. I have to say that I am opposed to this provision on principle. It is completely unacceptable that we should be considering withdrawing driving licences for some of the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I do not see how this will improve the system.
	I simply cannot understand why a government who are supposedly wedded to fairness and individual freedom should introduce such a proposal and such a clause. It is not good enough to say that this works elsewhere. What they do in America is entirely up to them: what we do here must respect our own conditions and our history. Indeed, what might work in America will not necessarily work here.
	In my view, the proposal is very unfair. It is also extreme and discriminatory in that it is designed to punish just one section of the population, albeit one that constitutes 50 per cent of the population; namely, men. As we heard this afternoon, the main "culprits", if we can call them that, are men. Therefore, it is discriminatory. I thought that my noble friend the Minister and the Government were against discrimination on sex and other grounds. Moreover, many of those who are reluctant to pay maintenance have, in their view--though not perhaps in ours--very good and valid reasons for withholding payment. Indeed, one of the most common is difficulty of access. Everyone here knows about difficulties of access. That causes acrimony of the worst kind. Parents now, apparently, are to be treated worse than criminals. They are to be treated worse than robbers, muggers, rapists, paedophiles, drug dealers and IRA terrorists--I do not think that there are any proposals to take away their driving licences.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that I can help my noble friend. I wonder whether he is aware that in March 1997 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, introduced a Bill on this matter. There are already pilot schemes in Norfolk and Greater Manchester which allow magistrates to withdraw driving licences for sentences other than those associated with driving. I hope that in the light of those comments my noble friend will withdraw his somewhat over the top remarks, if I may say so.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I most certainly will not. Those are pilot schemes and therefore have not been introduced generally. We are including provisions in a Bill as regards people who do not pay maintenance in advance of introducing them for muggers and rapists and other criminals. I should have thought that my noble friend, who I think believes in individual freedom, would not pray in aid a proposal brought forward by the Conservatives in 1997. I was certainly opposed to that at the time. I remain opposed to it at the present time because the punishments are not relative.
	Driving licences were introduced as documents to show that persons were fit to drive and could drive safely. They were not introduced as an internal passport, which they now threaten to become. This is the typical tool of control beloved of authoritarian states such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those remarks may be over the top but that is precisely the kind of thing that happens in such countries. I am ashamed to say that it is now happening here.
	My noble fried ought to explain how the clause will protect those whose livelihood is gained from driving. I know that provision is mentioned in the Bill, but is it intended that such people will be exempt from a ban when others are not? Usually there is no exemption from a ban. Will those people be in a different category? This provision introduces a new concept which does not apply to the general withdrawal of driving licences.
	What about enforcement? How shall we enforce this measure? God above, the police have enough on their hands at the present time without chasing people who have not paid their maintenance to check whether they are driving without a driving licence! What about the police? Their resources are already stretched to the limit. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the measure will result in an increase in the number of people driving while disqualified, putting the rest of us at risk, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned.
	I find it amazing that the New Labour Party--perhaps we should take the "Labour" out of it--should come forward with a proposal of this kind. The withdrawal of driving licences is bound to be seen as the thin end of the wedge. My noble friend says that pilot schemes already exist. This will pave the way for driving licences to be withdrawn for all kinds of other reasons, not just for criminal offences but for all kinds of other misdemeanours. This could be the thin end of the wedge. People should be loath to introduce this kind of legislation.
	The local elections showed a growing alienation from government on the part of many sections of the community. When men realise how they are being singled out for special punishments, there will be further alienation.
	This is a nasty, discriminatory, extremist and authoritarian clause. There will be no vote on it tonight, but it will certainly be voted on at Report stage. Even if I am the only one to vote against it, I shall make sure there is a Division. I sincerely hope that at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others will ensure that there is a vote to get rid of this unnecessary, unwarranted and nasty piece of legislation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I gather that my noble friend does not approve of this measure.
	Let me go back a step. All of the changes to child support that we are proposing are to ensure that maintenance flows to children in a way which is as conducive as possible to mediation, negotiation and good relationships between the parents. That in turn will benefit the children. We want compliance and we are hoping to get compliance. We have a simple formula: men are being asked to pay less; parents with care will be offered a maintenance disregard; if maintenance flows, men will see the money going to their children; we will have the development of a local face-to-face service which can offer interviews in order to sort out problems and so on. We want compliance.
	Enforcement, which is what we are now talking about, only kicks in when compliance fails. We want compliance to work and we want to change the culture in order for it to do so.

Lord Higgins: Is it not the case that, if this proposal goes forward, many people who are dependent on being able to drive for their living will find it completely counterproductive. Intrinsically, one is introducing a measure which will reduce people's ability to pay; therefore the possibility of compliance is reduced, not increased

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, the threat of this should help increase compliance. One will lose one's licence only if one fails to pay maintenance. We want people to pay their maintenance. Enforcement kicks in only when people do not voluntarily pay their maintenance. If I may say so, the noble Lord's point is back to front. This possible penalty would kick in only when someone has failed to comply. We are therefore talking about the area of enforcement.

Lord Higgins: Will the noble Baroness give way?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can respond to the noble Lord's point and then perhaps he can intervene. I shall of course give way if he wishes.
	One has to ask what remedies are currently available. My noble friend is right, it is mostly men who are non-resident parents; therefore, by definition, it is mostly men who fail to pay maintenance liabilities. Any penalty which insists that men--that is, fathers--pay maintenance, can, on that argument, be regarded as discriminatory. By a definition of the statistics, this penalty will apply mostly to men. I hope that my noble friend will accept that argument. Whether it is a fine, imprisonment, a restraint order or a garnishee order, all penalties will be levied on those who do not pay their maintenance--and, statistically, they will be mostly men. It is men who are the non-resident parents and it is women, for the most part, who are the caring parents.
	I hope that my noble friend will accept that this is not discriminatory, except in so far as most non-resident parents are men and, therefore, any kind of penalty for failure to pay will fall disproportionately on men by virtue of that fact.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will my noble friend give way?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: She is of course correct that the non-resident parents are usually men. Is she aware that one of the reasons for this is that men believe that if they go to court for custody of the children they do not stand a chance; that custody is usually--indeed generally--given to the woman? That is why men generally are the non-resident parents.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is too late to engage in that debate tonight.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, it is not.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am willing to, but I am not sure that my other noble friends are. To argue that men are unfairly treated by the courts in determining who gets residence is to put to question the whole of the developments in social policies since the Children Act 1989.
	I accept that there may be cases where there should be greater contact between them. There are no saints or sinners in this story. I am not saying that all lone parents are perfect and that all non-resident parents are sinners--far from it. Nonetheless, I doubt whether few people would not agree, as the courts themselves agree, that, by and large, the parent with care tends primarily to be the mother. Where that is not the case, there may be good reasons for it. But I suggest to my noble friend that at this stage we do not go into that argument.
	I was seeking to address the point that the penalty is discriminatory against men. I was trying to suggest that, on my noble friend's argument, all penalties are discriminatory against men simply because they are the vast majority of non-resident parents and the vast majority of those failing to do what they should. My noble friend's argument seems to follow the line that men have an inalienable right to drive associated with an inalienable right not to support children. I really do not accept that.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is not my argument. My argument is that the driving licence is a document which entitles people to drive because they have passed a test to drive and because they are safe to drive. That is my argument. That licence is being used improperly to enforce other parts of the law. I am sure that my argument is correct. It is a pity that my noble friend does not listen to it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have listened very carefully to my noble friend. I simply disagree with him. He argues that it is improper. I argue that it is proper. That is simply a juxtaposition of different perspectives.
	What we have at the moment is a range of penalties if a non-resident parent fails to pay his maintenance. They include a fine. They include a distraint order. We know that a distraint on goods is effective in less than 10 per cent of cases. They include a garnishee order, which is on the property. It may be 10 or 15 years before that property is sold and the garnishee order comes into effect. They include imprisonment.
	We have heard about depriving someone of his livelihood. From the way noble Lords have spoken, one would think that imprisonment is not currently available. If we currently had as an option disqualification as a penalty for men and in addition we were introducing imprisonment for the first time, everything that noble Lords have said about depriving people of their livelihood and so on would be valid. On the contrary, what we are doing is proposing to the Committee that we add another penalty, one which we know from experience abroad--if we have not experienced it ourselves, why should we not turn to experience from abroad?--is more likely to lead to compliance than many of the other penalties.
	The problem is making someone pay any money for maintenance. Adding a fine simply adds to the amount of money he is required to pay and does not deliver. Distraint of goods does not deliver. The bailiffs do not get access in other than about 10 per cent of cases. Garnishee orders do not work. With imprisonment, what you are saying to the child is that your father is in prison because he refuses to support his child.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I really must tell her that when we discussed the original Bill I and others opposed imprisonment. It is inappropriate.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Possibly, but the point is that imprisonment is one of the penalties for contempt of court. If the CSA has taken someone to court for failing to do something, the courts currently have that power to do so. I ask the Committee: which is better for the child; which is better for the parent with care; and which is better for the father--that he should have his driving licence taken away or that he should go to prison? I have no doubt in my mind that all of the arguments advanced about livelihood, children and rural society and all the other flimflammery that has been offered to defend men's inalienable right to drive their cars without at the same time supporting their children are based on a notion that somehow imprisonment is not a realistic option.
	We are trying to find a way of ensuring that men comply with their obligation to support their children. This measure produces an additional penalty which is available not to the CSA but to magistrates. If magistrates so determine that they wish to pursue the removal of a driving licence rather than imprisonment, that must surely be in the better interests of the man, the better interests of him maintaining his livelihood and the better interests of the child; and, what is more, the moment he starts paying his maintenance his driving licence is restored. Once he is in prison, he does not have that choice; he is there until the end of the sentence for contempt of court. I know which is the more serious of the two penalties. If we ask which it is more decent to do, to threaten to remove a driving licence or to threaten to send someone to prison, I know which sanction is, first, likely to be more effective, secondly, less likely to damage a child, and, thirdly, more likely to ensure that maintenance will be paid, and that is the removal of the driving licence.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is fascist.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend uses the word "fascist". A lot of sanctimonious nonsense has been talked during this debate. I really will not accept this language--"Hitler", "This is fascist", and all the rest. What we are saying is that magistrates will have the option of another sanction in their repertoire which will not be a failure, as fines are--which simply add to the debt which is already causing the problem of payment. It does not end up imprisoning the man and does not try to seize his goods, which in any case is ineffective. My noble friend appears to be saying that he is in favour of all penalties just so long as they are not effective. That is his objection, I suspect--

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not saying that at all.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: --that the provision will be effective, and will therefore bite and will actually make men pay. I am sorry to see that.
	Amendment No. 84 would mean that magistrates would have to inquire into whether the non-resident parent needed his licence to buy food, take children to school or attend for medical treatment. We consider that requiring the courts to inquire into whether the non-resident parent needs his driving licence to earn a living, together with an inquiry into his means, is a clear and vigorous provision. The further inquiries suggested by the amendment would place an unreasonable burden on magistrates. It would be difficult to define the circumstances when the suggested provisions might apply. For example, the non-resident parent may have a partner who can drive. Some magistrates may decide that the new partner can take the children to school or buy the food; others may not inquire into the availability of alternatives.
	We believe that all parents should accept responsibility for the financial support of the children. Those who refuse to do so, who can pay but are failing to do so, must see that we mean business about collecting maintenance. It is right that the Child Support Agency should have an adequate range of sanctions that will help achieve this.
	Amendment No. 86 seeks to change the rules on availability for work and qualifying for JSA. The effect of the amendment would be to allow the non-resident parent to be exempt from the "actively seeking work" rules for the period of any disqualification.
	Exempting a jobseeker who is deprived of a driving licence under this sanction from the "actively seeking work" provision would be at odds with the key purpose of JSA, which is to ensure that recipients maintain a clear labour market focus. There is nothing to prevent jobseekers who are disqualified from driving under this provision either paying their maintenance, whereupon they will have their driving licence restored, or from seeking other types of work not requiring a driving licence. We might expect a jobseeker who is deprived of a driving licence under these provisions because he is failing to pay his maintenance to realign his job goals to take account of the disqualification.
	JSA regulations already provide protection for those who live in remote or rural areas. In determining whether a jobseeker satisfies the "actively seeking work" requirement, the regulations state that regard shall be had for all the circumstances of the case, including the location and availability of vacancies.
	The clause introduces a new civil penalty, as opposed to a criminal penalty such as imprisonment, that will enable an order to be made by magistrates disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. Under the current enforcement arrangements, the CSA would first apply to the magistrates for a liability order. Discretion would then be used as a method of enforcement in individual cases: for example, bailiff action, garnishee orders or ultimately going back to the courts for committal. This new penalty will be added as a final sanction to give magistrates an alternative to committal proceedings.

Lord Higgins: Is the Minister saying that withdrawal of the driving licence is a civil penalty rather than a criminal penalty?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand it, it is a civil penalty. We are talking about civil penalties. That is one of the virtues of the provision. We are trying not to cross the line between civil and criminal jurisdictions.
	These are the procedures that the magistrates' court will have in mind. It is not the CSA but the courts that will decide the matter. The court will have to be satisfied that the non-resident parent has deliberately refused or neglected, through his own fault, to pay the maintenance owed. The courts have to be satisfied on a point which I am sure will concern the noble Lord.
	This measure is a serious penalty, intended to be used where the non-resident parent has clearly and persistently failed to meet his responsibility to maintain a child. I would expect it to be used only when other methods of collecting maintenance, such as a deduction from earnings order or a distress action, has failed. I repeat, we are talking about people who can pay but will not do so and magistrates realise that.
	We understand that the loss of a driving licence may have a particularly hard impact on people who live in rural areas. For this reason we have placed a specific duty on the courts to consider whether a licence is needed by a parent to earn his living. But it would fatally undermine the effectiveness of this penalty if it could never be applied where there was a risk of the non-resident parent losing his job as a result. In practice, it would give magistrates no alternative but to imprison those parents to whom the driving licence penalty could not be applied. In other words, if one lived in a rural area one would be more likely to be sent to gaol on the basis of the argument that one could not afford to lose one's driving licence, which would be perverse.

Lord Higgins: Is a magistrates' court a civil court?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As far as I am aware, it deals with both civil and criminal matters. I am receiving support from elsewhere for the point that I have just made, but if I have misled the noble Lord I am happy to write to him about the nature of the jurisdiction. Parking fines are the subject of civil and not criminal offences. Some of the debts handled by magistrates' courts are not criminal matters. Magistrates deal with other matters as a first step on the road to the criminal jurisdiction; for example, assault, burglary or whatever, which are criminal offences. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to pursue this point, but if I can provide any further elucidation I am happy to try to do so.
	This measure would be fatally undermined if it could never be applied in rural areas. If that happened the person concerned would, instead, be liable to imprisonment. We would far rather that the person concerned was in work and paid maintenance, but for those few hard cases we must demonstrate that to fail to support your child when you are able to do so is unacceptable. In each case the magistrates, not the CSA, will decide whether the current penalty of committal or the new penalty of removal of driving licence is the more appropriate sanction. If the maintenance arrears have still not been paid at the end of the disqualification period an application may be made to the court either for a further period of disqualification or committal proceedings. That penalty will apply equally to non-resident parents who live in Scotland.
	Experience elsewhere shows that the threat of losing the driving licence ensures that money flows. In the past I have cited cases in Minnesota, Texas and elsewhere, but I shall not do so tonight. This measure works. We believe that the possibility of withdrawal of the licence will make non-resident parents thinks twice about trying to evade their responsibilities. Unlike imprisonment and some of the other penalties suggested in another place--for example tagging--this will not bite on the child.
	I hope the Committee accepts that what we propose here is an added sanction that is available to magistrates when they determine what to do with someone who repeatedly fails to pay maintenance. We seek to introduce a new penalty, which is of a lesser order than some of the other penalties that are currently available, that may obviate the need for someone to go to prison. We hope that, as shown abroad, the threat of it will ensure that maintenance flows to the child without criminalising the father in so doing. That must be to the advantage of the child and mean that maintenance flows. I hope that as a result noble Lords will withdraw their objections to this proposal.

Earl Russell: Before I say anything else, I shall forgo any advantage which may be derived to my argument from the suggestion that this proposal is discriminatory against men. I am reminded of a rather wise remark by Christina Larner in a book on witchcraft in which she said that prosecution of witchcraft was only anti-female in the sense in which prosecution of violence was anti-male. That remark set up a revolving door which I entered 15 years ago and from which I have not yet emerged. I am not quite so satisfied by the argument about whether this proposal is discriminatory as between drivers and non-drivers. It seems to me that if two people commit the same offence and one is a driver and the other is not the former will be the more severely punished of the two.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may dispute that. If he does not have a driving licence, the alternative would be for the magistrates to consider committal to prison. So it is not true that the person holding a driving licence would be more disadvantaged than someone who does not.

Earl Russell: That brings me to the point on which the Minister spent a great deal of effort about the argument of comparison between prison and deprivation of driving licence. It is an accepted point that if one breaks the law prison may be the ultimate consequence. But what we are comparing here is a spell in prison with being a second-class citizen living in the world outside. I do not think that that comparison is as easy as the Minister suggests.
	I accept, of course, that people who are not safe in charge of a motor vehicle must be deprived of a driving licence for the protection of the public. But to turn individuals into second-class citizens in the course of their ordinary life in the world singles out a group of people in a way which causes me some anxieties. I do not want to reach any firm decisions on the question today, but it is a more complicated argument than the Minister realises.
	Very much to my surprise, the noble Baroness stated that people who are deprived of their driving licences may obtain other types of work. I do not know what part of the country she is thinking about. There are some where that is possible; there are a great many where it is not. The noble Baroness talked about the driver getting his licence back. That may be so but by that time he may well have lost his job. He will have lost the ability, therefore, to pay maintenance, and the ability to comply.
	It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the whole proposal is shooting the gander that lays the golden eggs.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I still do not understand what I regard as the back to front nature of the argument. A person is either actively seeking work or in a job. He fails to pay his maintenance. On the example given by the noble Lord, he knows that a driving licence is essential for his continued job. He will say to himself, "I am being asked to pay child maintenance. I do not want to pay child maintenance. If I do not pay child maintenance I may lose my licence and may lose my job." What is the response to that? "I had better pay my child maintenance."

Earl Russell: I was coming to that point which was raised most clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Her argument is simply that this will increase compliance. Perhaps it will but, having lived in the United States, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, makes. One cannot even write a cheque to pay for one's groceries without producing a driving licence in the United States. Therefore I do not think that the situations are comparable.
	We have here people subjected to a penalty for not complying with a requirement on which they have never been allowed a hearing. That leaves two possibilities still open. One is the possibility that they cannot pay. I shall give way to the Minister in a moment, but I ask her to consider that she may be mistaken in asserting that there are no people who cannot pay what is assessed. She cannot know that without the individual hearing. Cases are infinitely various. She is beginning to sound very much like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, saying, "It is not a question of can't pay but a question of won't pay". I do not think that the noble Baroness can know that without a hearing. I give way.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl seems to be suggesting that the CSA will take away the driving licence. It is the magistrates' courts which will do so if that is the sanction they propose. It will be they who will hear the case. So this notion that the individual will not be able to put his case to a magistrate and have those circumstances taken into account is simply not true.

Earl Russell: Will the person be able to argue to the magistrate that the CSA's assessment of him is unjust because he cannot pay it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, because the CSA's assessment falls on his income and the number of children. By definition, it is not that he cannot pay but what priority he puts on that payment over other items of expenditure.

Earl Russell: In fact the Minister concedes my point.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not accept the noble Earl's point.

Earl Russell: So I observe. That is precisely the cause of our problems. Let me assume a particular case in which the debt is due to Her Majesty's Government. For many centuries Her Majesty's Government have made a claim that debts due to them take priority over all other debts. You cannot have two first priorities. If the person owes, say, for a back assessment of income tax a sum which he cannot pay without failing to pay his child maintenance, what then is his legal duty? When the Minister can give me a convincing answer to that question I may be a little more prepared to listen.
	That is my first possibility and I do not retreat from it. My second possibility is that although the assessment may be perfectly just, the person concerned may be unwilling to accept it because he has not been able to have a hearing and to argue his case. The link in most people's minds between having a hearing and consenting to what is imposed on them is very deep indeed. One of the reasons why the CSA has failed so comprehensively, which is not changed in the Bill, is that that point has not been taken on board.
	I take the Minister's point about the ineffectiveness of penalties, but I am not asserting an inalienable right to drive. My favourite remedy for the problem would be improvement in public transport so that driving was not so necessary. The Minister knows that perfectly well. She is saying that because other penalties are ineffective something must be done. That is the most dangerous cry in politics.

Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Once an argument is put forward that the real effective penalty is removing driving licences, it will not be restricted to issues of child maintenance. Every offence one can think of will involve the removal of the driving licence and that is the real thin end of the wedge.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposals were introduced in March 1997 by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on behalf of the noble Lord's government. Why is he now so bad mouthing proposals introduced in the dying weeks of his last government?

Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that I do not bear responsibility for the last government. But perhaps she will tell us what the result of the pilot schemes were and whether any licences were removed.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot tell the Committee about the results of pilot schemes. However, I wanted to ask the noble Lord since when it has been the usual stance of an Opposition Front Bench only a couple of years after departing government to take no responsibility whatever for the actions of his own government just three years before. I have heard about irresponsibility, but that is to put a new meaning to the word.

Earl Russell: As one who opposed those provisions when they were introduced, and still does, the ability to admit error is something which in politics I prize. I honour the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for doing it and I am perfectly ready to accept the points that he makes.

Lord Higgins: As the debate is becoming a little disorderly, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Baroness raised the issue of a pilot scheme, of which I was not previously aware. Having done so, I asked whether it was implemented and whether licences were removed and she said that she does not know. That seems a very odd way of proceeding.

Earl Russell: That was the next question I was going to ask. Would the Government consider deferring the introduction of the clause until the pilot schemes are completed and we can observe the results and debate them? That might save the Government a good deal of trouble.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The evaluation report of the pilot scheme, which, given that it was introduced by the previous government, the previous administration might have been interested in following through, was published at the beginning of March. The report shows that its use was not particularly high partly because one of the areas in which it was piloted was Norfolk. There, magistrates tended not to use it and went for fines.
	The point I want to make is that they were opting for fines in cases in which the problem was not about failure to pay money and therefore people might have been willing to pay fines. Our problem as regards the CSA is that the obvious remedy, which is to fine someone for failing to do something, simply adds more debt to the outstanding debt.

Lord Higgins: Did the pilot scheme result in anyone losing their driving licence?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. This is a Home Office matter. I gave evidence that the previous administration was quite comfortable to use the removal of driving licences for offences that were not related to driving. That appeared to be news to the noble Lord.

Earl Russell: When I first introduced this amendment very nearly an hour ago, I said that it might take some time. I did not intend it to take quite as long as it has done. I believe that we have gone on long enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 14, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 15 and insert--
	("(6) In this section "the court" means--
	(a) in England and Wales, a magistrates' court;
	(b) in Scotland, the sheriff.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 90:
	Page 16, leave out lines 19 to 26.
	Page 16, leave out lines 42 to 44.
	Page 17, line 4, leave out ("40A(10)") and insert ("40A(8)").
	Page 17, line 4, at end insert--
	("( ) In section 164(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (power of constables to require production of driving licence etc.), after "Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988" there shall be inserted ", section 40B of the Child Support Act 1991".
	( ) In section 27(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (offence of failing to produce a licence), for the word "then," there shall be substituted ", or if the holder of the licence does not produce it and its counterpart as required by section 40B of the Child Support Act 1991, then,".").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Civil imprisonment: Scotland]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 17, leave out lines 9 to 18.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Financial penalties]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 18, line 45, leave out ("his absolute") and insert ("the reasonable exercise of his").

Earl Russell: I hope that this will not take long. My purpose is probing in the first instance. I need to see the Minister's answer.
	This amendment deals with the provision in Clause 18(2) that a penalty for arrears of child maintenance shall be,
	"determined by the Secretary of State in his absolute discretion".
	My amendment would alter that to the "reasonable exercise of" his discretion. The real purpose of the probing is to discover exactly what the Minister believes to be the effect of the word "absolute". It is a word with slightly uneasy overtones. However, my specific question is: is it the Minister's intention that the clause should bar the exercise of judicial review? If that is her intention, what does she believe is the likelihood of it being effective?
	Before she answers, I hope that she might bear in mind the ruling of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which I have quoted before, in the case of Fayed v. Home Secretary, that if Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unreasonably it must say so in express words. I do not believe that these are express words within the noble and learned Lord's meaning. However, that is something on which Ministers might wish to take future advice. Therefore, in the hope of hearing an answer which might reassure me that I do not need to take the matter further, I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 93 relates to the provision which will enable the CSA to impose a discretionary financial penalty of up to 25 per cent of the maintenance owed where payments are unreasonably late or missed altogether. Penalty amounts will be set at the discretion of the Secretary of State and will be used by the agency basically as a tool in negotiations. The aim is to persuade non-resident parents to meet their responsibility to their children in full and on time rather than to impose the penalty.
	The amendment alters the wording on the face of the Bill to specify that the use of discretion should be reasonable. This amendment is unnecessary. The penalty will not be imposed automatically. The circumstances which have led to a late or missed payment will be taken into account when considering whether a penalty would be reasonable. The non-resident parent's position is further protected in that he will be able to appeal to an independent tribunal against a decision to impose a penalty and/or the amount of the penalty.
	The noble Earl asked also whether it will remove his right to judicial review. My understanding is that it will not.
	The Government are determined to ensure that non-resident parents meet their financial responsibilities and, obviously, as we discussed earlier this evening, we shall seek to get tough on those who do not. This simple administrative penalty is to recognise the additional work involved when payments are received late or not made at all. The money will not be kept by the agency; it will go to the Treasury. We believe that it is right that the taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the extra work that the agency has to do when maintenance has not been paid.

Earl Russell: The Minister does not need to explain the policy intention. I only want to know the effect in the Bill of the word "absolute".

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not understand the noble Earl's question because any power must be operated reasonably. Therefore, there is no effect of the word "absolute". When the noble Earl asked me the second question about judicial review, I was able to tell him that that right is not lost.

Earl Russell: If the word "absolute" has no effect, why not withdraw it from the Bill?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because we believe that it is right to protect the authority of the Secretary of State in that situation.

Earl Russell: How is that authority protected by the insertion of the word "absolute"?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because, as far as I am aware, that is consistent with the arrangements under the Social Security Administration Act, which we discussed earlier, as regards how the structures of decision-making, the workings of tribunals and so on are organised.

Earl Russell: Either this confers an arbitrary power or it is an example of the complaint of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the prolixity of the statute book. Either way, I am afraid that we must return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 agreed to.

Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.